Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Pradip kr. Barman S/o Lt. Pratap Barman – appellant
Versus
The Assam State Commission For Woman And Ors – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) no. 3827/2014
Decided on : 15-03-2023
ASCW - Matrimonial Dispute - Assam State Commission for Women Act, 1994, Section 10 - The court discussed the functions of the Assam State Commission for Women as delineated in Section 10 of the ASCW Act, 1994. It highlighted the powers and jurisdiction of the Commission and its limitations in adjudicating and determining the rights of the parties in a matrimonial dispute. The court referred to a similar case, Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women, to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, challenged an order by the Assam State Commission for Women directing the deduction of a sum from his arrears for the educational expenses of his son. The order was made in response to a complaint filed by the petitioner's wife, alleging domestic violence and seeking maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Assam State Commission for Women did not have the power, authority, or jurisdiction to adjudicate and determine the rights of the parties in a matrimonial dispute. It held that the impugned order was outside the Commission's power and jurisdiction and therefore void.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Assam State Commission for Women had the authority to pass an order in a matrimonial dispute and direct the deduction of a sum from the petitioner's arrears for the educational expenses of his son.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the functions and limitations of the Assam State Commission for Women as outlined in Section 10 of the ASCW Act, 1994. It also relied on a similar case, Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women, to support its finding.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 19.07.2014 was set aside and quashed as it was found to be outside the power, authority, and jurisdiction of the Assam State Commission for Women. The court also merged the interim order dated 08.08.2014 with its decision and made no order as to cost.
JUDGMENT :
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made assailment of an order dated 19.07.2014 passed by the respondent Assam State Commission for Women [‘the ASCW’ or ‘the Commission’, for short] in ASCW Case no. 174/2013.
2. By the impugned order dated 19.07.2014, the respondent ASCW had directed the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare Department to finalize the subsistence allowance of the petitioner immediately and thereafter, to deduct a sum of Rs. 72,790/-out of the arrears amount and to deposit the same in the savings account no. 20016089494 of the respondent no. 3 maintained at State Bank of India, Silpukhuri Branch for the education expenses of the son of the petitioner and the respondent no. 3.
3. The background events leading to the passing of the impugned order dated 19.07.2014 by the respondent ASCW can be narrated, in brief, as follows :-
3.1. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 was solemnized on 15.12.1993 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, a son was born to the couple on 25.07.1995. At the time of institution of the writ petition, the petitioner was serving as Service Engineer –cum-In-Charge Divisional Engineer in the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Assam with posting at Silchar and on the other hand, the respondent no. 3 was working as a teacher in Pub-Guwahati Girls’ High School, Chandmari, Guwahati. The son of the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 was studying in the Central Institute of Technology [CIT], Kokrajhar.
3.2. According to the petitioner, the relationship between him and the respondent no. 3 started becoming non-cordial and turning sour since the year 1999.
3.3. The relationship went on deteriorating thereafter. The respondent no. 3, on 17.07.2013, lodged a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Chandmari Police Station against the petitioner alleging commission of cruelty in different forms. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Chandmari Police Station registered a case, Chandmari Police Station Case no. 350/2013 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. In the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and subsequently, he was released on bail on 31.07.2013. Because of his detention after arrest in connection with Chandmari Police Station Case no. 350/2013 for more than 48 hours, the petitioner was placed under suspension by his employer i.e. the Government of Assam on 14.08.2013. According to the petitioner, he received subsistence allowance for the initial period of 3 [three] months but at a later point of time, the subsistence allowance was stopped which situation continued at the time of institution of the writ petition.
3.4. After lodging of the FIR on 17.07.2013, the respondent no. 3 had also filed a complaint against the petitioner before the District Social Welfare Officer, Kamrup [M], on 22.07.2013, alleging domestic violence by him. The said complaint stood forwarded by the District Social Welfare Officer, Kamrup & Protection Officer with a Domestic Incident Report under Sections 9/12 r/w Section 37[2][c] of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [‘the DV Act’, for short] to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati on 24.07.2013. On receipt of the same, the complaint had been registered and numbered as D.V. Case no. 153m/2013. At the time of institution of the writ petition, the case, D.V. Case no. 153m/2013 was pending before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate no. 1, Kamrup [M], Guwahati. The petitioner had claimed that when he had been paying maintenance to their then minor son regularly through the post office, the respondent no. 3 made a claim for maintenance in D.V. Case no. 153m/2013. The learned court after considering all aspects, passed an interim order on 28.03.2014 granting interim maintenance
AI
The Assam State Commission for Women lacks jurisdiction to issue orders for maintenance, as its powers do not extend to adjudicating the rights of individuals under the relevant act.
The Assam State Commission for Women lacks the jurisdiction to issue maintenance orders, which must be decided by appropriate legal forums according to applicable statutes.
The Manipur State Commission for Women has the power to entertain complaints and direct parties to appear for inquiry, but not to adjudicate or determine rights like a Court or Tribunal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes exceeded its jurisdiction and acted as an adjudicatory authority, which was beyond its powers. Th....
The Human Rights Commission’s role is purely recommendatory; it cannot issue binding directions, such as prohibiting medical practice.
State Commission lacks adjudicatory authority; it cannot determine caste or tribe status of individuals or demand caste certificate production.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
