NILANJANA GHOSAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the single mother of her ward Sagnic Bhattacharjee, residing at 46, Bagbazar Street, Kolkata 700 003 and she has showered all love and affection with utmost care in upbringing her minor son and he is studying in Aditya Academy Secondary, Kadambagachi, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, Kolkata - 700 125 in class VIII standard. The petitioner has alleged illegal and unauthorised detention of her minor son by the respondent No. 2, Child Welfare Committee, Kolkata from the legal and lawful custody of the natural guardian. It is submitted that the petitioner after dissolution of her marriage by mutual consent with her ex-husband, retained custody of her minor son Sagnic Bhattacharjee and the son has been well maintained by her.

(2.) It is alleged that on 4th June, 2021 in or about 8.45 am the officers of respondent No. 2 visited the house of the petitioner with the assistance of the respondent No. 6, the officer-in-charge of Shyampukur Police Station and took the custody of her son and they claimed to be the officer of Child Welfare Committee, Kolkata. The petitioner resisted the action taken by the said respondent officials but they managed to take the custody of the minor son of the petitioner from her and on being asked the police officers and the respondent No. 3 said they were taking the child into custody on the strength of an order passed by respondent No. 2. But they refused to show any order pointing out that the custody of the child will be returned in her favour from the office of CWC.

(3.) Accordingly, the petitioner went to the office of respondent No. 2 but found none in the office due to lockdown. Then she reported to the police station, Park Street, but could not provide any information regarding the minor son of the petitioner. It is alleged that the officers of the respondent No. 2 have subjected her minor son to inhuman treatment and torture but the petitioner is not in the knowledge of whereabouts of her minor son Sagnic and the nature of the legal proceeding passed by the respondent No. 2. Then petitioner wrote a complaint to respondent No. 2 on 9th June, 2021 narrating the entire state of affairs and inhuman torture meted out towards the minor son by the officers of respondent No. 2 while snatching the custody of the minor son Sagnic from the petitioner and the petitioner was not even allowed to meet her minor son Sagnic. The petitioner being helpless mother has approached this Court alleging unauthorised and illegal custody of her minor son. Hence, the instant application is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities, their men and agents and official assigns, each of them, particularly the respondent No. 2 to restore and return the custody of the minor son Sagnic to the petitioner at her residence. Further the petitioner sought for direction upon respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to take appropriate action against the errant officers of respondent No. 2 on the basis of written complaint of the petitioner dtd. 11th June 2021 and also to consider the representation of the petitioner dtd. 9th June, 2021. This Court vide its order dated 26th June, 2021 issued notices upon respondent calling upon them to explain the situation under which they had taken the step for custody of the child in a welfare home by the respondent No. 2, when the mother being the natural guardian was capable of maintaining the child. The State Legal Services Authority was also directed to report into the matter and in compliance thereof report was submitted on 30th June, 2021 and it would reflect from the order passed on 30th June, 2021 that this Court found appearance on behalf of the ex-husband of the petitioner who was allowed to be impleaded as respondent in this writ application. The report of the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal dtd. 29th June, 2021 clearly reflects that it was on the basis of a hand-written complaint of the minor son of the petitioner reported through the ex-husband of the petitioner, the child was taken into safe custody. The allegations so made in the written complaint regarding neglect and ill-treatment against the mother, on being denied by the petitioner even disputing the signature appearing in the written complaint, this Court wanted to ascertain and verify from the said minor son of the petitioner and directed State respondent for safe production of the child.