Disposed¶14

Purnima Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC24 Feb 2026WPA/2092/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection for septuagenarian mother in family dispute with son, daughter-in-law and granddaughter over peaceful possession of jointly owned house of deceased husband; complaint enquired into and diarized as family dispute; refusal to accept notice held good service; writ petition disposed with directions for strict vigil and police assistance; no costs; no affidavit invited, allegations deemed not admitted; WPA 2092 of 2026, Suvra Ghosh, J., order dated 24.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Police authority to keep strict vigil in the area, render necessary assistance/protection to the petitioner as and when sought, and ensure that the petitioner is able to reside in the house peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner; no order as to costs. ¶14

Purnima Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a septuagenarian mother alleging disturbance of her peaceful possession and mental torture by the private respondents in a jointly owned house, is entitled to police protection to reside there peacefully. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

On the basis that the house belonged to the petitioner's deceased husband and the petitioner and the 6th respondent are joint owners after his demise, the police authority is directed to keep strict vigil in the area, render necessary assistance/protection to the petitioner as and when sought, and ensure that she is able to reside in the house peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Refusal by the private respondents to accept notices amounts to good service of notice upon them, and they are not represented despite service.

¶7

Key takeaways

The house in question belonged to the deceased husband of the petitioner, and the petitioner and the 6th respondent are joint owners of the same after his demise.ratio¶12
Since no affidavit was invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 2092 of 2026) by a septuagenarian mother against her son (6th respondent), daughter-in-law (7th respondent) and granddaughter (8th respondent), alleging that the private respondents were disturbing her peaceful possession in a jointly owned house, torturing her mentally and attempting to oust her; she sought police protection. The State's report recorded that, on her complaint, an enquiry found a family dispute and the complaint was diarized. The private respondents refused to accept notices, which the Court held amounted to good service. Noting that the house belonged to the petitioner's deceased husband and that she and the 6th respondent are joint owners after his demise, the Court (Suvra Ghosh, J.) disposed of the writ petition directing the police to keep strict vigil, render assistance/protection as and when sought, and ensure the petitioner resides peacefully without disturbance from any corner; no order as to costs; no affidavit invited, allegations deemed not admitted.

¶1

25 24.02.2026 Ct. No.5 b.das

¶2

WPA 2092 of 2026

¶3

Smt. Purnima Das Vs. The State of W. B. & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Purbangshu Chandra Mitra Ms. Piyali Mitra Ms. Mahasweta Mukherjee …for the petitioner. Mr. Pantu Deb Roy Mr. Dipankar Ghosh …for the State.

¶5

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner and report submitted by the State are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶7

It appears that the private respondents have refused to accept the notices. Such refusal amounts to good service of the notice upon them. The private respondents are not represented despite service.

¶8

The petitioner is the septuagenarian mother of the 6^th respondent. The 7^th and 8^th respondents are the wife and daughter of the 6^th respondent respectively.

¶9

The petitioner alleges that the private respondents are disturbing her peaceful possession in the house belonging to the parties jointly, are jointly torturing her mentally and trying to oust her therefrom. She seeks police protection so that she is able to stay in the house peacefully and without any disturbance whatsoever.

¶10

¶11

It appears from the report submitted by the State that pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, enquiry was held. It was found that there is a family dispute between the parties. The complaint has been diarized.

¶12

In view of the fact that the house in question belonged to the deceased husband of the petitioner and the petitioner and the 6^th respondent are joint owners of the same after his demise, the police authority shall keep strict

¶13

vigil in the area and shall render necessary assistance/protection to the petitioner as and when sought. The police authority shall also ensure that the petitioner is able to reside in the house peacefully and without any disturbance from any corner whatsoever.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.

¶17

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶18

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Purnima Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnima Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rafik Uddin Halder Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sukumar Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Divendu Ghati Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Malati Sana Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S Monohar Lal Saraff and Sons Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Anas Ahmed Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.