Joy Brata Kundu vs State Of Assam And Anr Represented By Its ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 169 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Joy Brata Kundu vs State Of Assam And Anr Represented By Its ... on 9 January, 2026

                                                                                Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010273262025




                                                                         undefined

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

                                  Case No. : WA/403/2025

            1: JOY BRATA KUNDU
            DIST. DHUBRI

            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 78330

                       VERSUS

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

            2: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(s)     : Mr. S. Sahu, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s)    : Ms. P. Chakrabarty, Advocate for respondent No.1.

: Ms. R. Choudhury, Advocate for respondent No.2.

-B E F O R E -

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

09.01.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned Advocate for the appellant; Ms. P. Chakrabarty, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Page No.# 2/3

R. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2.

The respondent No.2 (father) is not happy with the appellants (sons) for the reason of the sons and their families not taking good care of the respondent No.2.

The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2025, has directed the appellants to vacate the premises in which they had been residing with their families for a long time after giving an expansive interpretation to the word "transfer" appearing in Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Act of 2007").

After hearing the contention of the parties, we are of the considered view that the stalemate between the father and the sons can be resolved if they are made to see reason. We say so also for the reason that with the insistence of the respondent No.2 for his sons to vacate the premises, the daughter-in-laws' right for a shared household gets adversely affected.

That apart, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he can also explore the possibility of an amicable settlement and payment of maintenance to respondent No.2, who is already getting pension, for a further decent living.

Thus, we direct the presence of both the appellants and the respondent No.2 on 20.02.2026 at 3:00 PM before this Court.

Let this case be placed in the Chamber of the Chief Justice for further deliberation on 20.02.2026.

Page No.# 3/3

Interim order dated 17.12.2025 to be continued till the next date.

                  JUDGE                       CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant