ORDER : This is a writ petition filed by the husband/petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 6-6-2014 passed by the Orissa State Commission for Women on an application filed at the instance of wife/opposite party No. 6 thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) in suitable installments to the opposite party No. 6. 2. Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of the Orissa State Women Commission is bad, arbitrary as well as beyond the claims made in the applications filed before it. Mr. Panda also submits that in view of order dated 14-2-2014 passed by the Orissa State Commission directing for closure of the case in view of investigation of the allegation of the opposite party No. 6 taking note of her complaint in Annexure-1 by the Mangalabag P.S. registering an F.I.R. vide P.S. Case No. 229 of 22-10-2013 there was no need for continuing in the case further even in the garb of further application vide Annexure-3. 3. Mr. Biswajit Mohanty-3, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 submits that it is a fact that opposite party No. 6 has already undergone several rounds of treatments and in the meanwhile there has been lot of expenditures and since this a case of negligence by the husband claims that there is no illegality in the order impugned. By filing a counter it also pleaded that the State Women Commission has made a lot of exercise before it has come to the direction for payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) to the victim wife and it is only based on such materials the State Women Commission has arrived at a rightful conclusion, which need no interference. 4. Heard the parties, order-sheet of the State Women Commission discloses the closure of the case by order dated 14-2-2014. I have perused the complaint at Annexure-3 filed by the opposite party No. 3 on behalf of opposite party No. 6. No doubt the complaint indicates some allegation of negligence and some information regarding expenditure maximum to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) on account of treatment of the opposite party No. 6 in different hospitals. I have perused the complaint at Annexure-3 filed by the opposite party No. 3 on behalf of opposite party No. 6. No doubt the complaint indicates some allegation of negligence and some information regarding expenditure maximum to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) on account of treatment of the opposite party No. 6 in different hospitals. From the perusal of the document vide Annexure-2, it clearly appears that the complaint of the opposite party No. 3 on the self-same issue has already been registered at F.I.R. No. 229 dated 22-10-2013 vide Mangalabag Police Station and now pending vide G.R. Case No. 1700 of 2013. Further taking note of the above development the State Women Commission after making necessary investigation by its order dated 14-2-2014 has already directed for closure of the case. Now coming to the impugned order vide order dated 5-6-2014 as appearing at page 24 of the writ petition it appears the proceeding was allowed to continue in view of further complaint of both the opposite party Nos. 3 and 6 jointly to the State Women Commission made on 11-4-2014 vide Annexure-3. Even assuming that there was any occasion for continuing with the proceeding by virtue of complaint to the Commission on 11-4-2014, reading of complaint vide Annexure-3 nowhere indicated any demand for any exact compensation on any head. It is merely an application by the opposite party Nos. 3 and 6 requesting the Women Commission for its intervention in the matter and for direction for compensation on the head of her fooding, maintenance and medical expenses. Under the circumstances, it is amply clear that there was absolutely no information/particular regarding any expenditure and I find the impugned direction of the women commission vide Annexure-4 as beyond materials available on record as well as based on no material at all. I also do not find any such reference on documents in the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6. The State Women Commission is a creature of State Commission of Women Act, 1993. Since Women Commission has the power under S. 10(1)(a)(i)(d)(ii) to provide financial assistance considering the condition of the woman does not empower the Commission to issue direction in non-consideration of materials available on record and direct for payment of compensation going beyond the materials available on record. Since Women Commission has the power under S. 10(1)(a)(i)(d)(ii) to provide financial assistance considering the condition of the woman does not empower the Commission to issue direction in non-consideration of materials available on record and direct for payment of compensation going beyond the materials available on record. I also do not find any single material in establishing the claim for compensation except a mentioning in the initial complain that there is already medical expenditure to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). 5. Under the circumstances, while setting aside the order dated 5-6-2014 passed by the State Women Commission as appearing at Annexure-4, considering the facts as appearing from Annexure-1 indicating some expenditures due to treatment of the opposite party No. 6, I direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only to the opposite party No. 6 within a period of one week from the date of this order. I make it clear that this order is passed keeping in view the materials available on record and will not preclude the opposite party No. 6 to make appropriate application before the Competent Authority which has to be dealt in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition succeeds to the extent directed above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.