JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. Having regard to the nature of controversy raised in this writ petition, the matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he got married with the respondent No. 2, as per the Mizo Customary Law by handing over the bride’s pride on 30.04.2018. Subsequently, they got married as per the Christian rites in the Church on 30.07.2020. Although the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have no issue between them, both of them have children from their earlier marriage. The petitioner has 4 (four) children from his earlier marriage, i.e., 3 (three) daughters and 1 (one) son. All the 3 (three) daughters are married off while the son remains with his father. As for the respondent No. 2, she has 2 (two) sons from her earlier marriage and both of them live with her. After marriage, the family moved in to their newly constructed house at Mualpui, Aizawl in the month of September, 2020. However, due to certain differences amongst the family members, the 2 (two) sons of the respondent No. 2 moved out from the house and subsequently, even the respondent No. 2 moved out from the house at Mualpui to join her sons. The respondent No. 2 then submitted a complaint before the respondent No. 1 asking their assistance in the matter. The respondent No. 1 then summoned the petitioner by issuing a notice for appearance on 26.08.2022 by fixing 30.08.2022 as a date for appearance. The petitioner appeared on the date fixed and on the same day itself, the respondent No. 1 directed the petitioner to deposit monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-in favour of respondent No. 2 with effect from the month of September, 2022. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 has no authority to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent No. 2. Referring to Chapter-III of the Mizoram State Commission for Women Act, 2004, the learned counsel submits that the same deals with the functions of Commission. A bare perusal of Section 10 of Chapter-III nowhere provides that the Commission can pass an order for payment of monthly maintenance. He submits that no doubt the Commission can investigate in the matter but upon conclusion of such investigation, the Commission can only make recommendations to the appropriate authority for taking further steps. Since there is no source of power, the impugned Order dated 30.08.2022 cannot be sustained and should be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities:-

(i) Union of India and Another Vs. Tulsiram Patel, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398.

(ii) Sarup Singh and Another Vs. Union of India and Another, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 198.

(iii) Indian Bank Vs. Manilal Govindji Khona, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 712.

5. Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 on the other hand submits that the respondent No. 2 approached the respondent No. 1 with her grievance and that is how the respondent No. 1 has taken up the matter. Since the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner are not staying together, the respondent No. 1 deemed it fit and proper to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-as monthly maintenance. The respondent No. 1 is also looking into the family problem of the parties, so as to find out a solution while examining as to whether there has been deprivation of rights of the respondent No. 2 and also examine as to what safeguards can be made. The respondent No. 1 had in fact upon summoning the parties, asked the petitioner as to whether he was willing to give some maintenance and to which, the petitioner did not answer. It was under such circumstance that the respondent No. 1, though it