The Court has jurisdiction under article 226 to evict sons and daughters-in-law from the residence of senior citizens if the latter is uncomfortable or inconvenienced by their presence, and it emphasized the conflicting rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the right of residence in a 'shared household' under the DV Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT

Rajasekhar Mantha, J. - The applicant, Swati Das, has applied for the recall of this Court's order dated 9th December, 2021, passed in WPa 19431 of 2021 on the ground that she did not receive notice of the writ petition being WPa 19431 of 2021.By the said order, the private respondent-who is the daughter-in-law of the writ petitioner-was ordered to be evicted from the residence belonging to her father-in-law.

2. The counsel for the applicant daughter-in-law submits that the writ court does not have jurisdiction to order eviction in a purely private family matrimonial dispute, and that she has an inherent right to stay at her marital home- being her father-in-law's residence-on the basis of a combined reading of S. 2(s) r/w Ss. 17 and 19(1) of the Domestic Violence act, 2005.

3. It is also submitted that the divorce decree against the appellant dated 5th December, 2020, obtained by the son of the writ petitioner, was so obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and suppression of facts. The said decree has been stayed by an order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22nd December, 2021. It is alleged that the said fraud and misrepresentation committed by the respondent-husband was in respect of service of both the divorce proceedings to an address in Midnapore, which resulted in the divorce decree being passed ex parte. This is despite the fact that the applicant-wife was never residing at Midnapore, and has always had her residence at the 2nd Floor of 46a Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700026, i.e. father-in-law's house.

4. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant daughter-in-law, that the police report based on which the court has acted was biased, and has been filed at the behest and instance of the writ petitioner. additionally, the applicant submits that the findings of tantrums thrown by the applicant against her in-laws, are contained in one single/solitary complaint dated 25th November, 2021 filed by the petitioner father-in-law, which ought not to have been given credence to.

5. On the question of jurisdiction of this Court to order eviction, reliance has been placed by counsel for the applicant on Division Bench's decisions of this court being Lipika Bose Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 2004 SCC Online Cal 367; as well as unreported orders of a Co-ordinate Bench in WPa 8630 of 2020 dated 28th april, 2021, Bhajogobindo Rai Bhajon Roi Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., and on Soripha Banu WPa 2165 (W)vs. State of West Bengal, dated 27th November, 2019,

6. The writ petitioner has countered all the arguments placed above, alongside placing judgments in furtherance of their own counter-arguments. The writ petitioner father-in law submits that the existence of an alternative remedy under some statute does not automatically place a bar on the Jurisdiction of the High Courts under article 226 to pass orders, and that the Courts can pass any such order in the interests of justice. On the point of the applicant invoking her right to continue in her matrimonial home, which has been claimed to be a 'shared household' under the DV act, 2005; the petitioners submit that the applicant has never claimed any mental or physical torture inflicted upon her by her in-laws- neither before the police nor before the Court of competent jurisdiction under the DV act.

7. Reliance has been placed by the counsel of the writ petitioner on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangita Saha Vs. abhijit Saha reported in 2019 18 SCC 819, wherein the apex Court has held that the right to a residence in a 'shared household' shall only be available when the complainant establishes domestic violence. The petitioner has also relied on a Division bench order of this Court in aPOT No. 105 of 2021 (anuradha agarwal Vs. Shivshankar agarwal) dated 16th July 2021, which has held that the concept of the 'shared household' shall apply qua the wife's claim towards her husband, and that the status of the wife in the househ