Joy Brata Kundu vs State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 9654 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Joy Brata Kundu vs State Of Assam And Anr on 17 December, 2025

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010273262025




                                                           undefined

                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WA/403/2025

          JOY BRATA KUNDU
          DIST. DHUBRI


          VERSUS

          STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
          AND EMPOWERMENT, PIN 781006, ASSAM

          2:DEBABRATA KUNDU
           BOTH ARE SONS OF JIBAN KRISHNA KUNDU AND RESIDENTS OF T.R.
          PHUKAN ROAD
          WARD NO. 2
           DHUBRI TOWN
           P.O. AND P.S. DHUBRI
           DIST. DHUBRI
          ASSAM
           PIN 783301

          3:JIBAN KRISHNA KUNDU
           S/O LATE JANENDRA CHANDRA KUNDU R/O T.R. PHUKAN ROAD
          WARD NO. 2
           DHUBRI TOWN
           P.O. AND P.S. DHUBRI
           DIST. DHUBRI
          ASSAM
           PIN 78330

For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Sahu, Assam


For the Respondent(s)         : Ms. Papia Chakraborty,

GA, Assam Page No.# 2/4

-B E F O R E -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

17.12.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned Advocate for the appellants and Ms. Papia Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent No. 1.

This writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.11.2015, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 3504/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed.

The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 30.05.2025, passed by the Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Dhubri Sub- Division.

The Presiding Officer of the Maintenance Tribunal had passed the order dated 30.05.2025 directing the appellants to vacate the premises of respondent No. 2 (father of the appellants) by removing their belongings and to deliver the physical possession of the premises to respondent No. 2 within ten days from the date of passing of the order.

This order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge by filing the afore-noted writ petition, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that the expression "transfer", appearing in Section 23 of the Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2007"), was not Page No.# 3/4

limited to actual/physical transfer by executing sale deed and was required to be given an extended meaning. In that event, it was held by the learned Single Judge that respondent No. 2 was only surviving on pension and, therefore, he had every right to put the self-acquired house on rent, which would fetch him the amount required for his maintenance, which was not being paid by the appellants.

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the extended definition of the expression "transfer" in Section 23 of the Act of 2007 was not apt in the facts of this case, where there is no allegation of any bad behavior of the appellants towards respondent No. 2, but of only an incidence of fraud, where the property was allegedly attempted to be sold by the appellants to somebody else, which fact has been disputed by the appellants.

It has further been submitted that if the order directing the appellants to vacate the premises belonging to respondent No. 2 is complied with, the entire family would be adversely affected. The daughter-in-law of the family also has a right to claim domicile in the shared household.

Ms. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, submits that there are certain pre-conditions for triggering Section 23 of the Act of 2007, which are not available in the present set of facts and, perhaps, instead of directing for vacating the premises, the appellants should have been asked by the Tribunal to give maintenance to respondent No. 2.

Let notice be issued to respondent No. 2 on the steps being taken by the appellants by tomorrow (18.12.2025), by registered post as well as by Page No.# 4/4

usual process, returnable on 09.01.2026.

Appellants to serve notice upon the respondent No. 2 by dasti mode as well.

In the meantime, the direction to vacate the premises shall remain in abeyance till the next date.

                           JUDGE               CHIEF JUSTICE



Comparing Assistant