LAWS(SC)-2010-8-56

BHABANI PRASAD JENA Vs. CONVENOR SECRETARY

Decided On August 03, 2010
BHABANI PRASAD JENA Appellant
V/S
Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission For Women And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Two questions arise for consideration-first, the extent of power of the State Commission for Women constituted under Section 3 of the Orissa (State) Commission for Women Act, 1993 (for short, Rs. 1993 Act) and then, as to whether the High Court of Orissa was justified in issuing direction for deoxyribonucleic acid test (DNA) of the child and the appellant who, according to the mother of the child, was its father suo motu. These questions arise in this way. On May 15, 2007, Bhabani Prasad Jena-the appellant and Suvashree Nayak-respondent No. 2 got married. The certificate of marriage was issued by the Marriage Officer, Khurda, Bhubaneswar on June 30, 2007 under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short, Rs. 1954 Act). In less than three months, to be precise, on August 7, 2007 the appellant filed a petition under Section 25(iii) of the 1954 Act in the Court of District Judge, Khurda, Bhubaneswar for a declaration that the marriage between him and the respondent No. 2, registered on June 30, 2007 was nullity and the said marriage has not been consummated. In that matrimonial proceedings, the respondent No. 2 has filed written statement and traversed the allegations made in the petition. She also claimed permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is not necessary to refer to the matrimonial proceedings in detail; suffice, however, to observe that the said proceedings are pending.

(3.) On December 30, 2008 the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before Orissa (State) Commission for Women (for short, Rs. State Commission) alleging that she was married to the appellant and due to torture meted out to her by the appellant and his family members and other issues, they have separated; she has no source of income and she was pregnant. Based on the said complaint, the State Commission issued notices to both the parties. On April 20, 2009, the parties appeared before the State Commission. The appellant submitted his written reply to the complaint and stated that marriage between the parties was invalid due to fraud and coercion and that he has already applied to the District Court, Khurda for declaring the marriage null and void.