The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Women's Commission does not have the authority to determine maintenance and direct the deduction of the amount from an individual's salary.

The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that:

“The Meghalaya State Commission for Women i.e. the Respondent No. 3 following a prayer for maintenance by the Petitioner’s wife i.e. the Respondent No. 4 summoned the Petitioner for personal appearance on 23.03.2012 and on his appearance he was made to sign a pre-typed Agreement and thereafter the Commission vide letter dated 26.07.2012 directed the Respondent No. 2 to deduct an amount of Rs. 10, 000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only from his salary and the Respondent No. 2, without application of mind, vide impugned Order dated 19.07.2012 started deducting Rs. 10, 000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only per month from the salary of the Petitioner and the Petitioner being aggrieved vide his Representation dated 9.9.2012 and 15.4.2014 requested the Respondent No. 2 to revoke the impugned Order dated 19.7.2013 but the Respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 30.4.2013 refused to do stating that the same can only be done on receipt of the settlement agreement with the Meghalaya State Commission for Women or on the orders of the appropriate court having jurisdiction over the powers and functions of the State Commission for Women.

Hence, this Petition”.

2. Mr. Z.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that, The Meghalaya State Commission for Women has no power to direct to deduct the maintenance at the source to the employer of the petitioner. He further argued that, The Meghalaya State Commission for Women had called the parties and settled the matter for maintenance. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 had settled the matter and fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10, 000/- per month (Rupees ten thousand) only and directing the employer of the petitioner to deduct the amount from the salary of the petitioner and to remit the same to the respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved by the said illegal order of the Commission, the petitioner approach this court and prays that necessary direction may be given. In support of his submission, he relied on the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993, the Meghalaya State Commission for Women Act, 2005 as well as the citations in the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena versus Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court reported in (2010) 8 SCC 633.

3. On the other hand, Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned GA appeared for and on behalf of the State as well as Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel appeared for the respondent No. 4. Both the learned counsels argued that the Commission has rightly passed the order and there is nothing wrong in the order. So, it may not be interfered with.

4. Section 10 at Chapter-III of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 defines the functions of Women Commission, which is reproduced herein below:

“10. (I) The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions namely :-

(a) make in-depth studies on-

(i) the economic, educational and health situation of the women of the State, with particular emphasis on the tribal districts and areas which are under-developed with respect to women’s literacy, mortality and economic development.

(ii) Condition in which women work in factories, establishments construction sites and other similar situations.

and recommended to the State Government on the basis of specific reports on improving the status of women in the said areas;

(b) compile information, from time to time, on instance of all offences against women in the State, or in selected areas, including cases related to marriage and dowry, rape, kidnapping, criminal abduction, eve-teasing, immoral trafficking in women and cases of medical negligence in causing delivery or sterilization or medical intervention that relates to child bearing or child birth;

(c) will co-ordinate with the State Cell and District Cells for atrocities against women, if any for mobilization of public opinion in the State as a whole or in