Felu Rani Karmakar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The affidavit of service and the report filed in court today be kept on record.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner, an aged widow lady, obtained an order from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kalyani, District- Nadia, inter alia directing her to reside in her house and directing both the sons of the petitioner, being private respondents herein, not only to show respect and good behaviour to the petitioner and allow her full access to her residence, but also to continue payment of Rs. 2000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, despite such specific directions, the petitioner has not been given access to the said premises till date.

Learned counsel for the private respondents controverts such submission and submits that the petitioner is residing with the private respondents in the premises in dispute.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities files a report which has been authored by the Inspector-in-Charge of the Kalyani Police Station. However, despite the length of such report, the same primarily narrates the facts of the case made out by the parties before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Inspector-in-charge has used the expression "discreet" as an adjective to the enquiry conducted by him, for reasons unknown to the court.

There need not to anything discreet in the matter. Rather, the petitioner should have been reinstated in her dwelling house publicly - with full honours and in broad daylight, which did not necessitate any discreet enquiry on the part of anybody, including the Inspector-in-Charge in question, to be conducted.

Hence, it appears prima facie that the police have avoided the cardinal issue here, which is the allegation of the petitioner that she has not yet been able to enter her dwelling house despite the specific direction of a competent forum, which made redundant any further enquiry into the merits of the matter by the police.

In such view of the matter and in view of the controversy between the parties as regards whether the petitioner is in possession of the dwelling house or not, the police, specifically the respondent no.4, is to ensure by sunset today as to whether the petitioner is actually in occupation of the dwelling house of the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate dated April 26, 2017 passed in Case No.51 of 2017 under the 2007 Act.

In the event the petitioner is not in possession of the suit premises, the respondent no.4 shall ensure that the petitioner is reinstated in possession of her dwelling house pursuant to the said order of the Sub-Divisional-Magistrate by tonight.

The petitioner is directed to co-operate and to contact with the respondent no.4 in that regard, if necessary with the assistance of any agent and/or advocate.

The respondent no.4 shall file a compliance report in the above regard tomorrow at 2 p.m., when the matter will next be taken up for hearing.