JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.L. Mandal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5 and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State counsel, appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner, at the time of filing the instant writ petition in the year 2010, was a Platoon Commander in Assam Tea Plantation Security Force and was posted at Naharkatia Tea Estate. His case is that he is married to one Rumi Bhuyan and his marriage was solemnized on 07.05.2010. The writ petition was filed by him assailing the validity of the order dated 16.06.2010 passed by the respondent No. 4. The order reads as follows: “ORDER In view of the complaint lodged by Mrs. Puja Baruah, w/o Ex-service P/C Ranjan Baruah deployed at Naharkatia T.E., he was asked to appear in O.R. on 18.05.2010 vide this office letter No. AISF-II/R/110/2009-10/1372 dated 14.05.2010. Accordingly, he appeared in O.R. before me on 18.05.2010 and heard him in person. During hearing, it is found that the complaint lodged by his wife Mrs. Puja Baruah is true. P/C Baruah has married 2nd wife in presence of his first wife Puja Baruah without her consent. Although Sri Baruah wants to keep his first wife with him, but Mrs. Baruah is not agreed to stay with the newly married 2nd wife of Sri Baruah. Since P/C Ranjan Baruah has violated the provision of Govt. servant Conduct rules, for marrying 2nd wife in presence of 1st wife without her consent, it is therefore ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- from the salary of P/C Ranjan Kr. Baruah from June/2010 to onwards to his first wife Mrs. Puja Baruah for her maintenance. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- should be directly debited to the SBI A/C No. 11647520988 of Mrs. Puja Baruah. Sd/- Commandant AISF Bn.-II, Niz Chabua, Dibruagarh, Assam” 3. A perusal of the aforesaid order goes to show that the petitioner was asked to appear before respondent No. 4 on 18.05.2010 in view of a complaint lodged by respondent No. 5, namely, Mrs. Puja Baruah. Based on the hearing, respondent No. 4 recorded the finding that the petitioner had married a second time and that the respondent No. 5 is the first wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, by the said order, the respondent No. 4 granted maintenance of Rs. Puja Baruah. Based on the hearing, respondent No. 4 recorded the finding that the petitioner had married a second time and that the respondent No. 5 is the first wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, by the said order, the respondent No. 4 granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-, per month, to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner and the same is to be credited to the account mentioned in the said order, which stood in the name of respondent No. 5. 4. Respondent No. 5, though entered appearance through Mr. Mandal, did not file affidavit. 5. Respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit. In paragraph 5, 7 and 9, it is stated as follows: “5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that however the appearance of the petitioner in orderly room on 18.05.2010 made his confession that respondent No. 5 Puja Boruah is his wife. But die to non-conceiving of a child for long period he married another lady. Besides that P/C Ranjan Baruah maintains a good relationship with respondent No. 5 Mrs. Puja Baruah physically, mentally as well as financially. They stayed at Hotel Monalisha Lodge, Bokakhat on 20.04.2007, room No. 107 and registered themselves as husband and wife. Moreover, they also lived as husband and wife in the house of one Sri Jiten Gogoi of No. 1 Dibhasigaon Moran and one Sri Manoj Borah of Dergaon town. Moreover, the petitioner opened a seven years Insurance plan with respondent No. 5 Mrs. Puja Boruah and in that plan he mentioned the name of respondent No. 5 as nominee quoting her relationship as wife. He never mentioned anything that he married Smti. Ruma Bhuyan on 07.05.2010. A photocopy of the register maintained by the Hotel authority as well as the certificate issued by the landlord are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B & C respectively. 6. *** *** *** 7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition the answering deponent beg to state that whenever respondent No. 5 was admitted at Dergaon CHC, P/C Ranjan Baruah petitioner identified himself as husband of the respondent No. 5. Besides that the patient slip of “Sanjivani Diagnostic” the name of the petitioner appeared as husband of Mrs. Puja Boruah. Besides that the patient slip of “Sanjivani Diagnostic” the name of the petitioner appeared as husband of Mrs. Puja Boruah. A copy of the patient slip is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D. 8. *** *** *** 9. That with regards to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition the answering deponent denies the correctness of the same. It is needless to say that the petitioner is simply trying to beat about the bush. It is quite unfortunate as to how he could refrain himself from the respondent No. 5 all of a sudden when he himself nominated respondent No. 5 in all official documents as his wife. This very nature/conduct amply proves moral turpitude. A copy of the Insurance certificate is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E.” 6. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid affidavit. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that despite informing the petitioner about the filing of the aforesaid affidavit, he has not turned up to file any reply affidavit. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the respondent No. 4 could not have recorded any finding with regard to the status of the respondent No. 5 as wife of the petitioner and the impugned order came to be passed based on the aforesaid finding that the petitioner had married for the second time during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent No. 5. He submits that if the respondent No. 5 had any grievance against the petitioner, she ought to have approached appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance and for maintenance and, certainly, respondent No. 4 is not the forum in which the respondent No. 5 could have claimed maintenance. 8. Mr. Mandal has submitted that as the petitioner has not contoverted the statements made by the respondent No. 4 in the affidavit, it is to be construed that the petitioner tacitly acknowledges the respondent No. 5 to be his wife and, therefore, as the order was passed by the respondent No. 4 to mitigate the hardship of the respondent No. 5, no interference with such order is called for. 9. Mr. Chutia, learned State counsel, submits that it appears to him that the order was passed by the respondent No. 4 more out of humanitarian consideration rather than on the basis of any authority vested in him by law. 10. 9. Mr. Chutia, learned State counsel, submits that it appears to him that the order was passed by the respondent No. 4 more out of humanitarian consideration rather than on the basis of any authority vested in him by law. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 11. In the writ petition, the petitioner had stated that on being asked to appear before the respondent No. 4, he had appeared before respondent No. 4 on 18.05.2010 and on being informed about the allegations made by respondent No. 5, he had denied the same and had asserted that he had neither married respondent No. 5 nor had any physical relationship with her. The petitioner, however, stated that he had known the respondent No. 5 and, on the death of her husband, the petitioner had occasionally extended financial help to respondent No. 5, who had two children through Late Gopal Sarma, her husband. It is pleaded that the daughter of respondent No. 5 is already married and the son was also aged about 18 years. It is also averred that the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 11,161/- per month. 12. No doubt the petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, but the question is: whether a declaration of marital status could have been made by the respondent No. 4 in his capacity as Commandant declaring the respondent No. 5 to be the first wife of the petitioner? The order of maintenance rests on the finding recorded by him that the respondent No. 5 is the first wife of the petitioner. Non-filing of any rejoinder to the affidavit of respondent No. 4, in the considered opinion of the Court, will not detract the Court to go into the question as to whether the respondent No. 4 could have pronounced such judgment declaring the status of respondent No. 5. The answer to this question has to be in the negative. It is only a court of law which can declare a matrimonial status in case of any dispute. An administrative authority is not endowed with a power to deduct salary of a government employee to grant maintenance to an individual unless such deduction is authorized by a judgment or order passed by a competent Court in an appropriate proceeding. It is only a court of law which can declare a matrimonial status in case of any dispute. An administrative authority is not endowed with a power to deduct salary of a government employee to grant maintenance to an individual unless such deduction is authorized by a judgment or order passed by a competent Court in an appropriate proceeding. The respondent No. 5 ought to have taken recourse to appropriate proceedings in a court of law to ventilate her grievance. 13. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is without any authority of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Court, however, hastens to add that this Court has not considered the materials which weighed with the respondent No. 4 in passing the impugned order and the impugned order is set aside only on the ground that such order was passed without any authority of law. 14. The respondent No. 5 will be at liberty to pursue her remedies before an appropriate forum. It is also provided that the petitioner will not be entitled to claim for reimbursement of the amount already deducted from his salary either from the respondent No. 5 or from the State respondents. But, henceforth, no amount shall be deducted from the salary of the petitioner towards maintenance of respondent No. 5. 15. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the above observations and directions. No cost.