PAPIYA SENGUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been moved seeking quashing of the impugned order being Annexure P -6 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent authorities to evict the writ petitioner from the premises in question.

(2.) THE writ petitioner is the wife of respondent no.7, whereas the respondent no.6 is her father -in -law. According to her case after her marriage, she along with her husband, respondent no. 7 started living at the Flat No. C/16 Baltikuri, Government Housing Estate, Baltikuri Howrah, which was under the occupation of her father -in -law, the respondent no.6 in the capacity of a tenant under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 along with other members of her in -laws house. During her stay there, she gave birth to a female child. It is now contended initially after marriage, her conjugal life was happy and peaceful but after a few days, the members of her in -laws, more particularly, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 started torturing her both mentally and physically. Thereafter, the said respondents and her other in -laws abandoned her there and her minor daughter and left the place. It is submitted during the period when the respondent no.6 was not there, it was the writ petitioner who had been regularly paying rent for the said flat and the same was duly received by the respondent no. 6. It is then added in the meanwhile, the writ petitioner moved an application invoking the provision of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah being Misc. Case No. 450 of 2011, where the relief sought for was a protection order under Section 18, residence order of shared household under Section 19 and for compensation and for other reliefs and obtained an interim order passed on January 13, 2012 and the same is still pending.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposed this application and submitted that this is a purely a private dispute between the writ petitioner and the private respondents and therefore this writ application cannot be sustained and prayed the same be dismissed.