2018 Supreme(Megh) 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
S.R. SEN, J.
Shri. (Dr). Wansainbor Lyngwi S/o Smti. E. Kharmalki - Petitioner
Versus
The Meghalaya State Commission for Women, represented by Member Secretary & Anr. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 199 of 2017
Decided On : 27-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Syngkon
For the Respondents: Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, Ms. M. Kynta
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Women Commission does not have the authority to determine maintenance and direct payment, and can only assist the aggrieved party to place the case before a competent court.
Headnote:
Women Commission - Jurisdiction of Women Commission - Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993, Meghalaya State Commission for Women Act, 2005 - The court held that the Women Commission does not have the authority to determine maintenance and direct payment, and can only assist the aggrieved party to place the case before a competent court. The agreement directing the petitioner to pay maintenance was set aside, allowing the respondent to claim maintenance from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner received a notice from the Meghalaya State Commission for Women directing him to pay maintenance to a woman without providing him with an opportunity to be represented by a lawyer or represent the case. The petitioner approached the court to set aside the order of the Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Women Commission does not have the authority to determine maintenance and direct payment, and can only assist the aggrieved party to place the case before a competent court. The agreement directing the petitioner to pay maintenance was set aside, allowing the respondent to claim maintenance from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Meghalaya State Commission for Women had the authority to determine maintenance and direct the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 and the Meghalaya State Commission for Women Act, 2005 to determine the jurisdiction of the Women Commission. It also referred to the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 633 to establish that the Women Commission does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the agreement directing the petitioner to pay maintenance, and stated that the judgment and order will not preclude the respondent from claiming maintenance or any other financial support against the petitioner from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Heard Mr. N. Syngkon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M. Kynta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The brief fact of the petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that:
“The Petitioner states that he has received a notice dated 31.05.2017 from the office of the Meghalaya State Commission for Women, Lower Lachumiere, Shillong, for his personal appearance on 20.06.2017 at 11 a.m. That the Petitioner after receiving the said notice has appeared personally before the said office on 20.06.2017 at 11 a.m. That to utmost surprise and shock without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to be represented by a lawyer or represent the case, the commission has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month to one Smti. Maria Syiemlieh in her Saving Account No. 0043010284066 of the United Bank of India, Iawmusniang Branch and the said order was thereafter typed in the official letter head of the Meghalaya State Commission for Women, Lower Lachumiere, Shillong, and the petitioner was asked to sign the same without his willingness to do the same but the petitioner had to put his signature therein for reason that he was asked by an authority established by law to do the same and in the event of his not doing the same he may face other legal consequences and therefore having no alternative the petitioner had signed the said order which was in the form of an agreement under the letter head and seal of the commission. That the petitioner states that Meghalaya State Commission for Women which is constituted under the Meghalaya State Commission for Women Act, 2005 does not provide the Commission with the power to grant maintenance as the same is the subject under sec 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
That the petitioner states that granting of maintenance by the commission is way beyond the powers, functions and jurisdiction of the said women commission and therefore the order granting such maintenance without any application of mind and without any jurisdiction is void and is liable to be set aside. That the petitioner states that the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month is highly exorbitant and is beyond the capacity of the petitioner to pay the same and as such humbly pray before your Lordship that the order dated 20.06.2017, passed by the said commission, without having any power and jurisdiction be set aside and quashed.”
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Meghalaya State Commission for Women has no power to direct to deduct the maintenance at the source of the petitioner or to compel the parties to make any agreement or paying the compensation. He further submits that in this instant case, the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Meghalaya State Commission for Women had called the parties directing them to sign the agreement, wherein compelling the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month. Being aggrieved by the said illegal order of the Commission, the petitioner approached this Court and prayed that necessary directions may be given.
4. On the other hand, the learned Sr. counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent did not force the parties to sign the agreement, but merely asked them to settle the matter voluntarily and amicably and the parties entered into an agreement by their own. He further argued that the Commission has rightly passed the order and there is nothing wrong in the order. So, the Court may not interfere with the decision of the Women Commission.
5. 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