RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT vs LOPAMUDRA SINGHA ROY AND OTHERS

18.5.2026
30
sb

CRR 1804 of 2026

Reserve Bank of India
Vs.
Lopamudra Singha Roy & Anr.

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anirban Dutta
Mr. Debabrata Das
Mr. A. Sarkar
Mr. Pratik Acharjee …for the Petitioner

Mr. Supratick Syamal
Ms. Arkarupa Roy ..for the O.P. no. 1

Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee
Mr. Dibyendu Bhattacharya
Mr. Prateep Bera
Ms. Kakan Das
Ms. Rimpa Adhikari …for the O.P. no. 2


The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated
29.8.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal no. 214 of 2024 by
which the appellate court has granted stay of operation of
the impugned order dated 29.7.2024 passed by the Trial
Court.
The opposite party no. 1 herein, Lopamudra Singha
Roy has preferred an application under Section 12 of the
Domestic Violence Act along with a prayer for interim
residence order under Section 23(1) of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short PWDV Act).
The Trial court while disposing of the said application, had
allowed the interim monetary relief in support of which, no
challenge was preferred before the appellate court.
However, appeal was preferred against other part of the

2
same interim order by which, the opposite party/husband
was directed by the Trial court not to interfere with the
peaceful possession and living of the opposite party
no.1/wife at RBI staff quarter, D88, 16/5 Dover lane under
Gariahat Police Station where she was residing at that point
of time, being the wife of opposite party no.2 claiming if at
shared household.
The husband/opposite party no. 2 herein made a
submission before the Trial court that the complainant/wife
obtained ex parte ad interim order under Section 23(2) of
the PWDV Act on 2.9.2022 in respect of protection of her
residence beside monetary relief. The said residence of the
complainant is found to be a staff quarter under RBI and
the husband is going to retire from service in the month of
July, 2025. Therefore, the Trial court modified his earlier
order to the following:
“ Considering such changed circumstances, order
dated 2.9.22 hereby stand modified in respect of protection
and residence order to the effect that complainant is hereby
provided with right to reside peacefully in her shared
matrimonial house situated at 45, Chetla Road, Kol-27 under
Chetla PS instead of her earlier entitlement to reside
peacefully at RBI Staff quarter, D88, 16/5 Dover lane
(Shinghipark) under Gariahat PS.
Respondent husband directed not to interfere with the
peaceful possession and living of the present complainant in
her matrimonial house situated at 45, Chetla Road, Kol-27
under Chetla PS; in default respondent husband shall be
liable to make payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month for
alternative accommodation in addition to monetary relief to
the effect of Rs. 22,000/- per month till the final disposal of
the complaint u/s. 12 of the PWDV Act.”

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the opposite
party no. 1 herein/wife preferred said criminal appeal being

3
no. 214 of 2024 and by the impugned order dated
29.8.2024, the appellate court while admitting the appeal,
had also granted interim stay upon the above quoted order.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/RBI is
not a party to the proceeding either before trial court or
before Appellate Court. However, the impugned stay order
directly and adversely affects the proprietary and statutory
right of the petitioner due to overstay at the staff quarter by
opposite party no.1,flouting trial court’s modified order and
it caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. He further
submits that residential accommodation provided by RBI to
it’s employee purely stands as a service benefit, which
cannot be retained or claimed as a shared household under
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
particularly after the employee has superannuated or
ceased to be in service. He further submits that the
st
opposite party no. 2 herein retired from service on 31 July,
2025. Therefore, by extending the benefit beyond the period
of service by granting stay order by the court below and
permitting unauthorized detention of the petitioner’s staff
quarter by the opposite party no. 1 herein is not
sustainable and therefore, the petitioner prayed for
direction of early hearing of the said appeal and also for
vacating impugned stay order along with an interim relief.

4
It is submitted on behalf of the opposite party no. 1
and 2 that they have already received the copy of the
application.
Under the Act of 2005, a wife has a legally protected
right to reside in a shared household and this protection
applies to the properties owned, rented or legally possessed
by the husband or the joint family.
However government quarters are provided for in
service employees to perform their duties. Once the
husband retires, the legal right to occupy the quarter
ceases. Concerned staff is required to vacate the premises
within a stipulated grace period, so that it can be allotted
for the benefit of another in service staff. It is no more res-
Integra that retiree has no fundament right to shelter that
can allow him to occupy government property for an
indefinite period.
It is needless to say that such government property
is exclusively owned by the government and the in service
staff only holds it as a temporary license to reside there and
therefore such government quarter cannot be classified as a
permanent shared household after the husband’s tenure to
stay there ends. However aggrieved person’s right of
alternative accommodation can be directed elsewhere or to
pay her rent, if she is entitled to get such benefit under the
provision of the Act of 2005.
Having considered above, the instant application
being CRR 1804 of 2026 is hereby disposed of with a

5
direction upon the court below to dispose of the Criminal
appeal no. 214 of 2024 preferably within a period of three
months from the date of communication of the order. The
interim order by which the court below has granted stay
dated 29.8.2024 stands vacated.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all
requisite formalities.
(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)