Allowed¶19

Tariful Piyada @ Tariful Peyada and Others v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Quashing of domestic violence proceeding – Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Calcutta HC17 Jul 2026CRR/86/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PWDVA Section 12; quashing of domestic violence complaint; abuse of process of the Court; uncontroverted/unrebutted allegations; ex parte proceeding; remarriage of complainant; pregnancy; RTI reply dated 10.05.2024; Block Medical Officer of Health; khulla talaknama; streedhan recovery; monetary relief; CRR 86 of 2025; Judicial Magistrate 7th Court Alipore; South 24-Parganas; Tariful Peyada v. State of West Bengal.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceeding in Complaint (A.C.) Case No. 214/2022 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore. ¶19

Tariful Piyada @ Tariful Peyada and Others Vs State of… — Domestic Violence | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceeding in Complaint (A.C.) Case No. 214/2022 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore, is liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of the Court, in view of the unrebutted allegation that the complainant (opposite party no. 2) has since remarried.

¶9

Court's answer

Despite receipt of the copy of the application and notice, the opposite party no. 2 did not come before the Court to controvert the petitioners' specific allegation that she had already remarried (named Habibuddin Molla in the judgment) and was pregnant from that marital tie; the Court relied on these unchallenged statements.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Further continuance of the proceeding under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, which pertains to grant of monetary relief and recovery of streedhan articles, would be a mere abuse of the process of the Court.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of domestic violence proceeding — Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Complaint (A.C.) Case No. 214/2022 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas — Petitioners (husband's family) alleged, supported by an RTI reply dated 10.05.2024 from the Block Medical Officer of Health, that the complainant wife (opposite party no. 2) had already remarried one Habibur Molla and was pregnant, her earlier marriage to one Moksed Sk. having been dissolved by khulla talaknama on 8 August 2014 — Opposite party served but unrepresented; the specific allegation of remarriage stood uncontroverted — Court held, on the unchallenged statements, that further continuance of the Section 12 proceeding (concerning monetary relief and recovery of streedhan articles) would be a mere abuse of the process of the Court — CRR 86 of 2025 allowed; proceeding quashed.

¶1

17.07.2026 Serial no. 15 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 29

¶2

CRR 86 of 2025

¶3

TARIFUL PEYADA & ORS. -VS-

¶4

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

¶5

Mr. Sourav Mondal, Mr. Arijit Bhuiya, Mr. Rony Mondal, Mr. Debarghyo Sil, Advocates

¶6

… … For the Petitioners.

¶7

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶8

The opposite parties are not represented in spite of service of notice.

¶9

In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the entire proceeding in connection with complaint (A.C.) Case No. 214/2022 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 7^th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas.

¶10

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 got married on 10.09.2018 according to Muslim rites and customs. Thereafter on 16.03.2021 the opposite party no. 2 without the consent of the petitioners went to her parental home along with her streedhan articles. Though the petitioners on several

¶11

¶12

occasions had tried and requested the opposite party no. 2 to return to the matrimonial home but the opposite party no. 2 refused to do so and, thereafter, has lodged the instant complaint with a mala fide intention.

¶13

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the opposite party no. 2 has initiated the aforesaid proceeding under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 against the petitioners only to harass them. The petitioners received a reply to the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the office of Block Medical Officer of Health vide letter dated 10.05.2024, from which the petitioners came to know that the opposite party no. 2 has already got married with someone, namely, Habibur Molla and the opposite party no. 2 is carrying at present. It is further submitted that the opposite party herein also earlier married one Moksed Sk. and said marriage was dissolved by way of a khulla talaknama on 8^th August, 2014.

¶14

In the above background, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is evident that the opposite party no. 2 has already married someone and is also carrying and, therefore, the instant application under Section 12 which has been filed only to harass and humiliate the petitioners is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶15

Having considered submissions made on behalf of petitioners it appears that in spite of receipt of the copy of

¶16

¶17

application as well as the notice, the opposite party has not come before the Court to controvert the petitioners’ specific allegation that she has already got married with someone, namely, Habibuddin Molla and that she is presently carrying due to said marital tie. Relying upon such unchallenged statements made on behalf of the petitioners, I find that further continuance of the said proceeding under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, which basically pertains to granting of monetary relief and for recovery of Streedhan articles, would be mere abuse of the process of the Court.

¶18

In view of above, CRR/86/2025 is allowed.

¶19

The proceeding being Complaint (A.C.) Case No. 214/2022 under Section 12 of the said Act of 2005 presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 7^th Court, Alipore is hereby quashed.

Tariful Piyada @ Tariful Peyada and Others v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tariful Piyada @ Tariful Peyada and Others v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swapan Kumar De and Others Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Tuhin Sankar Bhattacharjee Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

M/S. Destiny Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Subhra Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Shantanu Dey and Another Vs Sweta Dey and Another

XXX-1 Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.