Heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos 1 to 4 and Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The legitimacy of the order bearing No.F4(l) IS/ADC/TLM/98-90/3896 (5) dated 31.12.97 is the subject matter of this proceeding (Annexure 4). The aforesaid order reads as follows: “As per decision of the higher authority, TTAADC, Khumlwng as communicated vide No. F. I (D/ADC7DY.CEO/Misc/96/27680-82 dated 23.12.97,50% salary of Sri Girindra Debbarma, KBT, Falguna Chow, Para JB School will be paid to Smti Runu Bala Debbarma from December 1997 & onwards. Salary payment of Sri Debbarma for the month of Dec 1997 only will be made from the cash counter of this office. Smti Debbarma is also requested to receive her portion from the cash counter on 1st working day from January 98 and onwards.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the impugned order is arbitrary, capricious and illegal. The respondents appeared before this Court. The respondent No. 5, the wife filed her counter affidavit. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned order on merit. According to them, a representation was submitted by Smti Runu Bala Debbarma, respondent No. 5, wife of the petitioner alleging second marriage of the petitioner and non-maintenance of his first wife. The TTAADC which is a statutory authority took cognizance of the matter, held an enquiry and found that the petitioner was negligent in looking after his first wife after his second marriage. Accordingly, they directed the Inspector of School to arrange for deduction of 50% salary of the petitioner payable to the respondent No. 5 wife of the petitioner from December, 97 and onwards. 5. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above action of the TTAADC is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that they took the law into their own hands. Upon hearing only respondent No. 5, they directed to deduct the salary of the petitioner even without taking the petitioner into confidence. 6. Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Bhattacharjee learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 respectively submitted that this impugned order was passed taking into consideration all the aspects including the sustenance of the minor child born in their wedlock. 7. 6. Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Bhattacharjee learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 respectively submitted that this impugned order was passed taking into consideration all the aspects including the sustenance of the minor child born in their wedlock. 7. On going through the papers on and on considering the arguments advanced by the parties, the said order, however, cannot be said to be strictly legal. Such matters are normally adjudicated by the forum created by the statute.At any rate, the direction to recover 50% of the salary from a Govt employee in this process seems to be excessive. 8. In that view of the matter, this matter should be adjudicated in the proper forum. For this purpose, the respondent No.5 may approach the appropriate forum for the right remedy. 9. Till the matter is finally adjudicated, I am of the view that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.500 (Rs. five hundred) per month to the respondent No.5. Accordingly, the Inspector of School concerned shall make arrangement for realisation of Rs.500 per month from the salary of the petitioner Sri Girindra Debbarma and shall pay the same to Smti Runu Bala Debbarma, respondent No. 5. The petitioner shall deposit the balance amount @ Rs.500 per month from June 98 onwards which was fixed by this Court. The arrear amount-shall be paid by the petitioner in three equal instalments in addition to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month to the respondent No.5. This order will be operative till the matter is finally adjudicated in a Court of law. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned order, the writ petition is allowed.