The Sikkim State Commission for Women lacks the authority to adjudicate disputes, only able to receive complaints and recommend remedial measures.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The present writ petition filed on 02.06.2023 assails the Order dated 05.11.2020 passed by the Sikkim State Commission for Women (respondent no.2) on the ground that under the Sikkim State Commission for Women Act, 2001 it did not have the power to pass such an order.

2. The impugned order was passed on the following facts and circumstances. On 06.10.2020 the respondent no.3, the wife preferred a complaint before the respondent no.2. She alleged that she had been suffering because the petitioner, her husband, had been having an affair with his own relative i.e. sister-in-law for almost a year; when confronted the sister-in-law denied the facts and switched off her cell phone; she had proof regarding their affair and adultery; the petitioner used to mentally torture her and their children; the petitioner has not given her a single rupee from his salary; she was in grief not knowing what she was supposed to do and therefore, sought the guidance and help.

3. What happens thereafter, before the respondent no.2, is the pivotal issue which has led to the present writ petition being filed, although belated.

4. Admittedly, summons were issued to the petitioner and respondent no.3 by the respondent no.2. According to the respondent no.2 during investigation it was revealed that the petitioner was having an affair with the sister-in-law. Although it is not clear how the sister-in-law appeared before the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 confirms she assured the respondent no.3 that she would not continue her relationship with the petitioner and sought apology from respondent no.3. When the respondent no.2, as asserted by it, was requested by the parties to record the confession of the sister-in-law, the Order dated 19.10.2020 was prepared by the respondent no.2. On 19.10.2020 the respondent no.2 heard the petitioner, the respondent no.3 as well as the sister-in-law and passed the following Order:-

'Heard both parties and their submissions. The other woman Ms. Jxx Sxx was also present. The husband has asked to get salary certificate on 23/10/2020. The other woman Ms. Jxx Sxx has submitted that she will not keep any kind of relation with her brother-in-law henceforth. She has sought apology from the wife of Jiwan Kr. Bhusal. Next date 23/10/2020.'

5. According to the respondent no.2 when the petitioner and the respondent no.3 appeared before it on 05.11.2020 both the parties were given full opportunity to place their grievance and after hearing them passed the impugned Order dated 05.11.2020 recording what was agreed by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 in the following manner:-

'Government of Sikkim

Sikkim State Commission for Women

Gangtok

In the matter of :

Smt. Sunita Bhusal

R/O: Bardang, East Sikkim

Complainant

Versus

Shri. Jiwan Kr. Bhusal

R/O: Bardang, East Sikkim

Respondent

ORDER

Memo No. 175/SSCW/2020-2021

Date: 05/11.2020

Heard both parties and their submissions. The husband has brought his salary certificate. As agreed by both, the husband will give Rs.20,000/- to his wife for the maintenance on monthly basis from December which will be directly deducted from the salary a/c as decided by the husband. Both parties will maintain cordial relationship.

Sd/-

Member Secretary

Sd/-

1. Smt. Sunita Bhusal

Sd/-

2. Shri Jiwan Kr. Bhusal'

6. According to the petitioner, he was cleverly coerced to pay Rs.20,000/- to respondent no.3 as maintenance on monthly basis and also made the sister-in-law to pay Rs.3 lakhs in cash and a 'khada' to the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 disputes this assertion and submits that the story of coercion after a lapse of four years is a false allegation. The respondent no.3 also disputes that the petitioner was coerced to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- as maintenance but admits that the petitioner himself had voluntarily given consent to pay Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondent no.3 also submits that respondent no.2 had only assisted respondent no.3 in getting immediate financial help