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.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

An order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Assam State Commission for Women, whereby the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the respondent no.3 as maintenance, to be deducted every month from his account, is the subject matter of challenge in this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is posted as Duftry at the Srimanta Sankardeva University of Health Science. The respondent no3, who is his estranged wife, had filed a case in the Assam State Commission for Women (hereinafter the Commission), which was registered as ASCW/53/2021. In the said case, vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2021, maintenance has been determined and directed to be paid by way of deduction from the monthly salary of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel. So far as respondent no. 3 is concerned, though notices have been served, she has chosen not to appear and contest this proceeding. In this connection, it would be relevant to place on record the earlier order dated 04.02.2026, as per which the aspect of service of notice upon the respondent no. 3 has been held to be complete.

4. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has based the challenge on mainly two grounds. Firstly, he has contended that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and the second ground would go to the root of the matter inasmuch as, he has questioned the jurisdiction and authority of the Commission to pass such an order. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the Assam State Commission for Women Act, 1994 (hereinafter the Act), more particularly, Section 10 thereof, which is with regard to the functions of the Commission. He has submitted that though various powers and functions have been bestowed upon the Commission, the power to grant maintenance has not been bestowed and therefore, there is a serious jurisdictional error in the impugned action.

5. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and Anr. reported in(2010) 8 SCC 633, wherein it has been clearly laid down that the jurisdiction and function of the Commission have to be confined to those which are specifically entrusted to it under the Act. He has submitted that in that case, a direction to constitute a DNA test issued by such a Commission was the subject matter of challenge and the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant that the same would come within the aspect of examining a complaint has been negated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has also submitted that though the observations are with regard to the Act of the State of Orissa, the present Act is in pari materia and therefore, the principles and ratio would be squarely applicable.

6. Shri Handique, learned State Counsel has fairly submitted that though the objective of the Commission appears to be bona fide, it appears that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to pass such an order of maintenance.

7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

8. The aspect of maintenance is covered by various statutes including Section 125 of the earlier CrPC [corresponding to Section 144 of the BNSS ] as well as under the personal laws. However, such power of determining maintenance