SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4988

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
JOYANTY CHATTERJEE – Appellant
Versus
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS – Respondent
WPA 20978 / 2025



##PAGE1##

Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 20978 of 2025

Joyanty Chatterjee nee Das & Anr.

Versus

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

For the petitioners : Mr. Susanta Kumar Gangopadhyay

Mr. Arun Kumar Chakraborty

Mr. Subas Ray

Ms. Subhasree Banerjee

For the Kolkata : Ms. Tanushree Dasgupta

Municipal Corporation. Ms. Rajyashree Mukherjee

Heard on : 19.12.2025.

Judgment on : 19.12.2025

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a

direction upon Kolkata Municipal Corporation, being the

respondent no.2, to consider and replace the name of the erstwhile

husband of the petitioner, being the respondent no.4, from the birth

certificate and other corresponding documents of the minor child by

incorporating the name of Dhananjoy Das the petitioner no.2, and

present husband of the petitioner no.1 and step father of the minor

child.

##PAGE2##

2

WPA 20978 of 2025

2. According to the petitioner no.1, the petitioner no.1 was married to

one Subhasis Bhattacharyee on 21st January, 2014 in accordance

with Hindu rites and customs. Subsequently, the marriage was

registered as per the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The petitioner no.1 would

contend that by reasons of incompatibility, the petitioner no.1 and

her husband decided to separate from the relationship and

accordingly the marriage was dissolved in terms of Section 13B of

the said Act by a judgment and order dated 12th April, 2023, passed

by the District Judge, Hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No.383 of 2022.

3. According to the petitioner no.1, prior to the dissolution of

marriage, out of the aforesaid wedlock the petitioner no.1 had given

birth to a female child. It is the petitioner no.1’s case that her

husband while seeking the mutual divorce had clarified that he did

not want to take the responsibility of the child. Such fact is

recorded in the memorandum of settlement dated 29th September,

2022. The petitioner no.1 would contend that the custody of the

child has remained with her ever since. The petitioner no.1 has

thereafter entered into a matrimonial relationship with the

petitioner no.2 on 15th November, 2023. The factum of such

marriage would corroborate from the certificate of marriage issued

by the office of the Registrar General of Marriages dated 15th

November, 2023. According to the petitioners, the minor child is

continuing to reside with the petitioners in the residence of the

##PAGE3##

3

WPA 20978 of 2025

petitioner no.2 along with the petitioner no.1 and is growing up as

daughter of the petitioner no.2. It is also the petitioners’ case that

the petitioners are jointly taking care of the child. The petitioners

contend since the biological father of the child, being the

respondent no.4 herein, had absolved himself of all his

responsibilities, in ordinary course the name of the biological father

in the birth certificate is creating psychological impact on the child.

Faced with such circumstances, the petitioners had approached the

municipal authorities for issuance of a fresh birth certificate by

removing the name of the biological father. Since, the municipal

authorities did not accede to the prayer, the instant writ petition

has been filed.

4. This matter was taken up for the first time by this Court on 9th

December, 2025. Though, the petitioners had filed an affidavit of

service, by such order the petitioners were once again directed to

communicate the gist of the order dated 9th December, 2025 to the

non-appearing respondents. Since then, a fresh affidavit of service

has been filed. Despite service the respondent no.4, the biological

father of the minor child remains unrepresented. This Court has

also interacted with the child, the petitioners, in presence of the

learned advocates representing the respective parties, in chamber,

on 15th December, 2025.

##PAGE4##

4

WPA 20978 of 2025

5. Taking into consideration the request made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top