Calcutta High Court
FMA/1037/2026 of KAJAL PANJA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 1 October 2026
No.1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.D/L.13 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Saikat APPELLATE SIDE Mukherjee FMA/1037/2026 with CAN/1/2026 KAJAL PANJA ]… Appellant Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS ]… Respondents Appearance: Mr. Rajib Kumar Basu, Advocate for the
Ct. No.1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Item No.D/L.13 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Saikat APPELLATE SIDE
Mukherjee
FMA/1037/2026
with
CAN/1/2026
KAJAL PANJA
]… Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
]… Respondents
Appearance:
Mr. Rajib Kumar Basu, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Debapriya Gupta, A.G.P. with Mr. Biswanath Banerjee, Advocate for the Respondent-State CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ.
&
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.
DATE
: 1st October, 2026.
ORDER (Per Court)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant for quite some time. We have perused the order of the Learned Single Judge which is challenged in this intra-court appeal.
2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant narrates primarily three major issues:- (a) The husband reconciled his differences with the Appellant last year and the earlier FIR was closed; (b) Now the husband is physically assaulting the wife and has driven her out of her owned house;
(c) The biological daughter of the couple, who was residing with the Appellant-mother, has been snatched away from her by the husband and is illegally detained by the husband after driving the Appellant out of the house which actually belongs to the Appellant.
3. Considering the above, we expressed a view that the Learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the Appellant has statutory remedies available.
4. The Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits on instructions that the Appellant desires to withdraw this Petition and she would initiate appropriate proceedings in the light of the above three issues, including filing of a Habeas Corpus Petition, if so advised.
5. In view of the above statement, this Appeal is disposed off as withdrawn on instructions.
6. Needless to state, if the Appellant avails of any remedy or remedies, the withdrawal of this Petition would not be an impediment and all contentions are kept open.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.) (Ravindra V. Ghuge) Chief Justice