Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Tushar Kanti Das vs Smt. Kajal Saha on 25 August, 2021
25.08.2021
Item No. 05
Crt.No.11
b.r. FMA 520 of 2021
with
IA NO. CAN 1 of 2021, CAN 2 of 2021
Sri Tushar Kanti Das
-vs-
Smt. Kajal Saha
(Via video conference)
Mr. Suman Sengupta
Mr. Tapas Maity
...... for the appellant.
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty
Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty
Mr. Amit Chowdhury
Ms. Sushmita Kumari Singh
...... for the respondent.
This matter touches a sensitive chord qua the parties and now, their Learned Advocates.
The appellant before this Court is the father and locked in custody with the maternal grandmother of his minor girl child.
By order dated 23rd June, 2021, the Hon'ble Division Bench acting on the consent of the parties, inter alia, permitted the father to enjoy visitation rights on the 1st and 3rd Saturdays of each month between 11 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. at the chamber of Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/the maternal grandfather and bearing the address 8/2 Kiran Sankar Roy Road, 1st Floor, Room No.16, Kolkata- 700001.
2Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing with Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty, learned Advocate, submits that following the order dated 23rd June 2021, the appellant/the father has conducted himself in a manner which disrespects the sanctity of this judicial proceeding.
It is alleged that the appellant/the father has engaged a private detective agency to investigate the learned Advocates appearing for the maternal grandmother. It is further submitted that particular attention has been shown by the said private detective agency on the residential premises of Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty as well as of the respondent/the maternal grandmother.
Mr. Suman Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/the father, submits that on the apprehension that the child may not actually be in the custody of the respondent/maternal grandmother, in his anxiety the appellant/the father may have engaged a private detective agency. The engagement is strictly limited to explore the factual aspects connected to the actual custody of the minor girl and does not impinge on the solemn directions of this Court dated 23rd June, 2021 (supra).
Having anxiously considered the rival submissions, this Court views the allegations of personal espionage by 3 a private detective agency in a Court proceeding qua an officer of this Court with the seriousness it deserves.
This Court is of the view, at this stage, that such apprehension could have been expressed by bringing it to the notice of this Court, if and as advised, by way of an affidavit.
This Court, at this stage, restrains itself from commenting further on the issue except, that to maintain the sanctity of the judicial proceeding since, this Court finds that with the acceptance of the fact that a private detective agency has been engaged on the factual matrix as discussed above, the appellant/the father has acted in a manner such as to destroy the consent recorded by the order dated 23rd June, 2021.
It needs no elaboration that the basis of the consent is the grant of visitation rights of the minor child being in the custody of the respondent/the grandmother.
Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to withdraw the visitation rights of the appellant/the father till the issue of engagement of a private detective agency is resolved by way of short affidavits.
The respondent/the maternal grandmother is directed to file her stand by way of a short affidavit within a week from this date and as well as of her learned Advocate-on-Record, Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty.
Let a counter affidavit be filed by the appellant within a week thereafter.
4
Let the matter return under the heading "To Be Mentioned" on the 15th of September, 2021.
All parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Jay Sengupta, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)