Gauhati High Court
Hemanta Patowary vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 10 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010254992014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3907/2014
HEMANTA PATOWARY
S/O SRI ARBINDA PATOWARY, VILL. KHARIKOT, P.S. KAMALPUR, P.O.
KAMALPUR, PIN-781380, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, S.W. DEPTT., DISPUR,
GHY-6
2:THE CHAIRMAN
ASSAM STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN
BELTOLA
MAIDAMGAON
GHY-28
3:DIRECTOR
HANDLOOM AND TEXTILE
ASSAM
AMABARI
GHY-01
4:ASSTT. DIRECTOR
OF HANDLOOM AND TEXTILE
ASSAM
AMABARI
GHY-01
5:JEENA MAHANTA
D/O LT. SIBA KANTA MAHANTA
R/O NO.2 UDALI
P.S. and P.O. BOKOLIAGHAT
Page No.# 2/6
PIN-78248
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.T R SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.P SHARMAR-5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 10-05-2022
Heard Mr. T. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. Alhajj I. Uddin, learned counsel, for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. B.
Deuri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1
to 4.
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order
dated 18.08.2012 passed by the Assam State Commission for Women in
ASWC Case No. 24/2012. By this order, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per
month was directed to be paid to the respondent No. 5 who was the
complainant till the matter is decided otherwise by the appropriate Court
of law.
It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that in the meantime the District Judge,
Karbi Anglong, Diphu in T.S.(M) Case No. 27/17 vide judgment dated 2 nd
August, 2019 has dissolved the marriage. The suit was decreed in favour
of the petitioner by declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent No. 5 as null and void and the suit was accordingly disposed of
on contest. It is however, informed by the learned counsels for the parties
that the matter is presently pending in appeal before this Court in MAT
Page No.# 3/6
Appeal No. 69/2018 whereby an interim order was granted suspending the
judgment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
besides the fact that Women Commission does not have the authority and
jurisdiction to pass or adjudicate any rights between the parties, the order
impugned has already spent its force as the amount directed to be paid
was till the matter was decided by an appropriate Court of law and which
accordingly has been decided by the District Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu
vide dated 2nd August, 2019 in T.S.(M) Case No. 27/17.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
direction to pay the maintenance is till the matter is decided by an
appropriate Court of law. Since the matter is pending in appeal and the
judgment of the District Judge, Karbi Anglong has been stayed it cannot
be said that the matter has been finally decided. Therefore, the amount of
Rs.5,000/- should be continued to be paid.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. I have also
perused the judgment placed before this Court. In Bhabani Prasad Jena -
Vs- Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and Anr.,
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 633, it is held by the Apex Court that there is no
power or authority given to the State Commission to adjudicate or
determine the rights of the parties. The State Commission for Women
cannot take up a role of a court or an adjudicatory Tribunal to determine
the rights of the parties. The powers of the Civil Court available to a
Commission are only in respect of the matters mentioned in the Act itself
and not for any other purpose. The relevant paragraph of the Judgment is
extracted below:-
Page No.# 4/6
"10. In other words, the State Commission is broadly assigned to
take up studies on issues of economic, educational and health care
that may help in overall development of the women of the State;
gather statistics concerning offences against women; probe into the
complaints relating to atrocities on women, deprivation of women of
their rights in respect of minimum wages, basic health, maternity
rights, etc. and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter with
the authorities concerned for remedial measures; help women in
distress as a friend, philosopher and guide in enforcement of their
legal rights. However, no power or authority has been given to the
State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the
parties".
In the present case, the Assam State Commission for Women vide
impugned order dated 18.08.2012 was directed the petitioner to pay
Rs.5,000/- per month to the complainant till the matter was decided
otherwise by the appropriate Court of law. It is also submitted at the bar
that presently there are two matters which are also pending before the
appropriate Court, namely, a Maintenance case filed by the respondents
No. 5 and a Domestic Violence Case which are presently pending before
the appropriate Court in the district of Karbi Anglong, Diphu. In the
present proceedings by the impugned order dated 18.08.2012 the Assam
State Commission for Women directed the authority under which the
petitioner is working, namely, the Textile and Handlooms Department to
deduct a monthly amount of Rs.5,000/- from the salary of the petitioner.
Vide order dated 13.08.2014 passed by this Court, the impugned order
passed by the State Women Commission was stayed. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the
judgment dated 2nd August, 2019 in T.S.(M) Case No. 27/17 passed by the
Page No.# 5/6
Court of Karbi Anglong, Diphu whereby the marriage was held to be null
and void, no further deduction has been made from the salary of the
petitioner.
The matter is no longer res integra since the law has already been
laid down by the Apex Court in this regard that the State Commissions for
Women do not have or are not empowered to decide or adjudicate the
rights between the parties as are being done by any appropriate Court of
law or Tribunal.
That apart the impugned order directed payment of Rs.5,000/- till
the matter is decided by an appropriate court of law. The appropriate
Court of law, namely, the district Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu vide
Judgment dated 2nd August, 2019 in T.S.(M) Case No. 27/17 on a petition
filed by the petitioner, has already declared the marriage null and void.
Although the matter is presently in appeal before this Court where an
interim order has been passed suspending the judgment by the district
Judge, Karbi Anglong, no direction for payment for maintenance etc has
been issued.
Consequently, we close the writ petition as the impugned order
dated 18.02.2012 has already spent its force inasmuch as an appropriate
court of law, namely, the district Judge, Karbi Anglong had already decided
the matter and held the marriage to be null and void. That apart the Apex
Court vide judgment in Bhabani Prasad (supra) has already held that the
State Commission for Women has no power to adjudicate or determine
the rights of the parties. However, it is open to the respondent No. 5 to
avail the remedies as provided for under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindi
Page No.# 6/6
Marriage Act, 1955, if so advised.
In terms of the above this writ petition stands closed. No order as to
cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
