Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 881 (PAT)

Deopujan Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-07-26

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2013
ORDER Petitioner is a retired government servant. Obviously all is not well on the matrimonial front between the petitioner and his wife, respondent No.7. There are progenies out of the matrimony but obviously things have soured so much that the husband and wife are not willing to live together. In fact, wife is stated to be living with the younger son. She demanded maintenance for which she approached a forum known as Bihar State Mahila Ayog, which has been created by a Gazette Notification dated 4th June, 1999. The said Commission has been constituted under Act VII of 1999. The composition, the entitlement as well as the details of the powers and areas in which the Commission is supposed to assert its authority are indicated in the said Act. 2. In the present case, on an application filed by the wife the said Commission for Women passed an order deducting 50 per cent of the pension of the petitioner and paying it to the wife i.e. private respondent no.7. The order in question is contained in Annexure-1/A annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. This is a cryptic two lines order which says that for the maintenance of the wife, half of the pension of the petitioner would be paid to her. Such decision is dated 7.5.2007. The Punjab National Bank, Paliganj Branch, on the basis of the directive of the District Magistrate, Patna, informed the petitioner that half of his pension is going to be paid to his wife. This communication dated 21.11.2007 is contained in Annexure-1. The order of the District Magistrate is also on record as Annexure-2. 3. The entitlement of the wife to beget maintenance from the husband is not the dispute in the present writ application. The larger question which is required to be decided is whether the said State Women Commission has the requisite power to pass such an order to divide the pension of the petitioner and pay half of it to the wife as maintenance. 4. The stand of the counsel for the petitioner is that there is no such power given therein. The powers, the object and the purpose for which State Women Commission has been set up are indicated in Chapter III of the legislation in question. 4. The stand of the counsel for the petitioner is that there is no such power given therein. The powers, the object and the purpose for which State Women Commission has been set up are indicated in Chapter III of the legislation in question. No doubt, under section 10(3) power of civil court with regard to issuance of summons, discovery of documents, receiving affidavits on oath, obtaining copies of public documents, as well as production of evidence, oral and documentary, by way of Commission etc is vested in the Commission. Merely because such power has been given it does not mean that the State Women Commission acquires the status of a court for all purposes. A detailed reading of the entire Chapter III, Section 10 does not give any impression to this Court that there is any power vested in the Women Commission to decide an issue of such kind and order withholding or diversion of pension of an employee in favour of a wife. It is basically an effort on the part of the Commission to expand its ambit and jurisdiction and the present case could be a test case in this direction. 5. Stand of the counsel representing the wife i.e. private respondent No.7 is that she is an old hapless lady. She knocked at the doors of various forums and authorities and it is only by the Women Commission that she has finally been granted relief to take care of herself as she has no other means for keeping herself alive. 6. The Court is not concerned with the humanitarian aspect of the matter. What is of significance is the validity of a decision taken by the Women Commission in light of specific statute by which they have been created. If the legislature in their wisdom has not conferred powers of such kind, then those powers cannot be acquired through innovation or mechanism when there is ample provision in other statute to take care of such problems faced by the wives who are not being taken care of by their husbands. 7. The Court comes to a considered opinion that neither the statute nor the provision of section 10 in any manner creates any right or jurisdiction in the Women Commission to pass such order which has been done in the present case. 7. The Court comes to a considered opinion that neither the statute nor the provision of section 10 in any manner creates any right or jurisdiction in the Women Commission to pass such order which has been done in the present case. It is a case of over-reach and maybe a calculated risk which has been taken by the Commission to expand its ambit and jurisdiction in the garb of taking a case of a woman. The Court therefore is left with no option but to quash the impugned order passed by the Commission contained in Annexure 1/A, the letter of the Bank dated 21.11.2007 contained in Annexure-1, directive of the District Magistrate, Patna, contained in Annexure-2 as well as communication of the Accountant General addressed to the District Magistrate, Patna. All these communications may have been made with the object of implementation of the order of the Women Commission but since the order of the Commission itself is beyond jurisdiction, any subsequent action taken thereto is of no avail. 8. The impugned orders are quashed. Writ application is allowed. 9. However, it is left open to the private respondent to approach the appropriate court either under Cr.P.C. or under other provisions of Hindu Marriage Act to beget her rightful claim.