The Calcutta High Court affirmed that senior citizens possess a constitutional right to peaceful entry and residence in their self-acquired property, even when a daughter-in-law claims occupancy. Balancing the competing rights under Article 226 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Court directed the petitioner’s return upon three days’ notice and police assistance if obstructed, while preserving ongoing matrimonial proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tapasi Bag, a widowed senior citizen and retired school teacher, alleged that her daughter-in-law, Janki Kumari (respondent no. 5), harassed and threatened her, forcing the petitioner, her late husband and son to vacate the self-acquired house at Village Bargachia, Post Office Nalikul, Police Station Haripal, District Hooghly and move to a flat at Serampore. She invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to secure her peaceful entry and residence in the said premises without obstruction by respondent no. 5.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s son, Subhadeep Bag, married respondent no. 5 on 10 March 2012 and the couple resided at the said premises.
- Differences arose and, on or about 19 March 2023, the petitioner, her late husband and her son were allegedly compelled to leave the premises and shift to a flat at Serampore.
- On 7 December 2023, respondent no. 5 entered the Serampore flat, demanded keys of a portion of the said premises and threatened the petitioner.
- The petitioner’s husband, who was seriously ill, died on 18 January 2024; the petitioner attributed his deterioration to the mental stress caused by respondent no. 5.
- Following the petitioner’s written complaint, Haripal P.S. Case No. 80/2024 was registered on 18 February 2024 against respondent no. 5 under Sections 341/323/504/506/304 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
- The Investigating Officer submitted Final Report No. 399/2024 dated 31 July 2024 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagar, declaring the case a ‘mistake of fact’.
- The petitioner’s son filed Matrimonial Suit No. 95 of 2022 on 7 March 2022 seeking divorce; respondent no. 5 filed M.C. Case No. 134 of 2022 dated 21 May 2022 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; both proceedings remain pending.
- The State, through the Officer-in-Charge, Haripal Police Station, filed two status reports: the first on 7 March 2025 and the second on 11 September 2026.
- The September 2026 report recorded that respondent no. 5 had requested the petitioner to reside at the said premises, but the petitioner declined.
Procedural History
- 25 September 2026: The writ petition was heard.
- 9 October 2026: Judgment delivered.
- Prior to hearing, the Court directed the State to file status reports, resulting in the reports dated 7 March 2025 and 11 September 2026.
Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s submissions
- Relied on Ramapada Basak v. State of West Bengal (2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2161) and Debaki Nandan Maiti v. State of West Bengal (2022 SCC OnLine Cal 740) to assert that senior citizens are entitled to peaceful entry and residence in their self-acquired property.
- Contended that the police had failed to act on her complaints, necessitating judicial intervention under Article 226.
- Emphasised that the relief sought was not eviction of respondent no. 5 but the petitioner’s own right to reside peacefully.
Respondent’s submissions
- Argued that the writ petition was misconceived and unnecessary because respondent no. 5 had never opposed or prevented the petitioner from residing at the premises.
- Submitted that, if the petitioner wished to stay, respondent no. 5 would not obstruct her entry, provided she gave three days’ prior notice.
- Contended that the litigation was instituted at the instance of the petitioner’s son-in-law’s husband to harass respondent no. 5.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to ensure her peaceful entry into and residence at the said premises without being prevented by respondent no. 5, and for such ancillary directions as the Court deemed fit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could direct the petitioner to be put into possession of her self-acquired residential premises, thereby balancing the senior citizen parents’ right to reside in their owned property against the daughter-in-law’s right to live in her matrimonial home.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Ramapada Basak v. State of West Bengal and Debaki Nandan Maiti v. State of West Bengal to submit that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was enacted to protect elderly citizens from being driven out of their homes. They argued that the police inaction, evidenced by the registration of Haripal P.S. Case No. 80/2024 and the subsequent final report, warranted a direction under Article 226 to secure the petitioner’s peaceful entry and residence, contingent upon giving three days’ prior notice to respondent no. 5.
For the Respondent
Counsel for respondent no. 5 contended that the writ was misconceived because she had never obstructed the petitioner’s residence and was willing to allow entry upon three days’ notice. They argued that the suit was filed at the behest of the petitioner’s son-in-law’s husband to harass respondent no. 5, and that the Court should not entertain a claim that did not seek eviction but merely sought to affirm a right already acknowledged.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that while respondent no. 5 possesses a right to reside in her matrimonial home, this right is not indefeasible to exclude the elderly owners of their own property. Drawing on S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District (2021 15 SCC 730, para 17), the Court observed that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 aims to ensure that senior citizens are not driven out of their homes in the twilight of their lives, and that a daughter-in-law’s right cannot be used as an instrument to oppress or exclude in-laws.
Further, the Court referred to Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021 1 SCC 414, para 90), which held that the daughter-in-law’s right to live in joint family property is not absolute and that courts must balance the competing rights of aged parents and the daughter-in-law. The Court also relied on its own precedent in Ramapada Basak v. State of West Bengal (2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2161), which recognised that under Article 226 the High Court has plenary powers to direct police authorities to ensure the peaceful entry and residence of senior parents in their self-acquired property without adjudicating title disputes.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s complaint had resulted in a registered case (Haripal P.S. Case No. 80/2024) and a final report declaring the matter a ‘mistake of fact’. Consequently, the grievance of police inaction no longer survived in the form originally pleaded. Nevertheless, the Court found it appropriate to issue directions to secure the petitioner’s peaceful entry, balancing the rights of both parties and preserving the ongoing matrimonial proceedings (Matrimonial Suit No. 95 of 2022 and M.C. Case No. 134 of 2022) from prejudice.
The Court emphasised that the order directing police assistance should not be construed as an adjudication on the allegation of wrongful prevention; it was merely a facilitative measure to give effect to the petitioner’s liberty to return upon three days’ notice.
“While the respondent No. 5 has a right to live in her matrimonial home, irrespective of the fact whether the same is owned by her or not, at the same time, the rights of senior citizens parents to live in their owned and acquired residential house cannot be defeated.”
The Court concluded that the writ petition was allowable, issuing the directions set out in the operative part, and declined to award costs.
The Verdict
The Court allowed W.P.A. 3566 of 2024. It directed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to return to and reside at the said premises upon giving three days’ prior notice to respondent no. 5, and that respondent no. 5 shall not obstruct her entry or cause any threat, harassment or disturbance. In the event of obstruction, the Officer-in-Charge, Haripal Police Station shall ensure the petitioner’s peaceful entry upon her intimation. The petitioner remains at liberty to pursue her remedies against Final Report No. 399/2024 before the learned Magistrate. No order as to costs was passed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Balancing Competing Rights in Family Property Disputes
The judgment reinforces that a senior citizen’s right to reside in self-acquired property is constitutionally protected under Article 226 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and is not subordinate to a daughter-in-law’s matrimonial right. Practitioners should frame relief as a claim for peaceful entry and residence, coupled with a notice requirement, rather than seeking eviction of the daughter-in-law.
Police Role in Facilitating Peaceful Entry
The Court clarified that police assistance can be directed under Article 226 to give effect to a senior citizen’s liberty to return, provided the petitioner gives prior notice (here, three days). This creates a procedural template: notice to the opposing party, followed by police-ensured access if obstructed, without delving into title or criminal allegations.
Limits of Writ Jurisdiction in Ongoing Matrimonial Proceedings
The Court expressly refused to pre-empt pending matrimonial disputes, directing that its observations shall not prejudice Matrimonial Suit No. 95 of 2022, M.C. Case No. 134 of 2022 or any proceeding arising from Haripal P.S. Case No. 80/2024. Lawyers must ensure that writ petitions for entry and residence are framed narrowly to avoid interference with substantive family-law litigation.
