Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Karpu Chisi, D/o. Henkar Chisi & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P., Represented by Secretary, Women and Child Development, Itanagar & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 265 of 2023
Decided On : 05-08-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Mow.
For the Respondents:Ms. T. Wangmo, Government Advocate, Ms. J. Zongluju.
IMPORTANT POINT
The APSCW cannot adjudicate matrimonial disputes already before a court, as its role is not that of a judicial tribunal.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Domestic Violence - Arunachal Pradesh State Commission for Women Act, 2002 - The Court interpreted the powers of the APSCW under the Act, concluding it cannot adjudicate matrimonial disputes already before a court, thus quashing the notice issued against the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged a notice issued by the APSCW based on a complaint alleging marital discord and extra-marital affairs, arguing that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the APSCW does not have the authority to adjudicate matrimonial disputes, especially when such matters are already pending in appropriate courts, thus quashing the notice issued against the petitioners.
Issues: Whether the APSCW had jurisdiction to issue a notice regarding a complaint involving marital discord and extra-marital affairs when the matter was already before a court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the APSCW's powers do not extend to adjudicating matrimonial disputes, which are to be resolved in courts, and thus the notice issued was beyond its jurisdiction.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the notice issued by the APSCW is quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Dev Choudhury, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, representing the State respondents and Ms. J. Zongluju, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by three petitioners, namely, Ms. Karpu Chisi, Sri Henkar Chishi and Smti. Yapi Chishi. They are aggrieved by a notice dated 30.05.2023 issued by the Arunachal Pradesh State Commissioner for Women (hereinafter referred to as APSCW) vide Memo No. APSCW/PP/EM & MH-08/2023 on a complaint filed by the respondent No. 4.
3. The facts which are not disputed either of the parties are to the following:-
I. The respondent No. 4 lodged a complaint before the APSCW on 20.04.2023 against the three petitioners.
II. The fundamental allegation is against the husband of the complainant, namely, Jimmy Chiram, which involves marital discord.
III. One of the allegation of the complaint is that her husband is maintaining an extra marital affairs with the petitioner No. 1, for which, her family life has been ruined and her husband started cruelty upon her.
IV. The other two petitioners are the mother and father of the said petitioner No. 1.
V. The record reveals that during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No. 4 (wife) had also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband which has been registered as DV Case No. 15/2023.
VI. The husband of the complainant (respondent No. 4) had also in the meantime filed a divorce petition being TS(D)/27/2023, which is now presently pending for adjudication before the learned District Judge, Yupia.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fundamentally urged that on bare reading of the complaint dated 20.04.2023 lodged by the respondent wife shall not disclose any case to confer any jurisdiction upon the Commission to issue notice more particularly, against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, on this count alone, the name of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 2 should be deleted from the proceeding of complaint dated 20.04.2024. So far relating to the petitioner No. 1, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there are certain allegation of domestic violence etc., and cruelty that has been meted out upon the wife by the husband, however, the allegation of having an extra marital affairs of her husband with the petitioner No. 1, cannot be adjudicated by the Commission.
5. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner also argues that since the husband and wife, both have approached before the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, the present petitioner No. 1, who is the 3rd party to their dispute should not be allowed to face unnecessary litigation.
6. Per contra, Ms. T. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, representing the State respondents as well as the Women Commission submits that the notices were issued only with an object that the matter can be amicably settled between the parties, and for such object, it was necessary that the parties should remain present before the Commission. According to her, the Commission shall not be powerless to go for such a procedure, so as to redress the grievance of a woman. Accordingly, the learned Counsel representing the Commission submits that the Commission shall have jurisdiction and competent to proceed in the matter.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4, i.e. wife, submits that this present writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that the petitioners are having an efficacious alternative remedy before the Commission itself inasmuch as only a notice has been issued and the Commission could have decidedits own jurisdiction and the petitioners ought not to have rushed to this Court for seeking judicial review of an order of issuance o
