SUDHIR KUMAR RAI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking quashing of order, contained in letter no. 02 BRMA/4990/2008, dated 31.12.2008, contained in Annexure-2, by virtue of which the petitioner has been directed to pay half of his salary as maintenance to his wife and his daughter as well as to improve his behaviour and to keep his wife with himself. This order has been termed by the petitioner to be an order beyond jurisdiction as well as the ambit or power vested in the Bihar State Women Commission.

(2.) It is the stand of the petitioner that the Women Commission has no power in this regard to delve into an issue like this. The power is vested in the Family Court or may be a Magistrate, exercising power under section 125 of the Cr. P.C. The ambit of the power of the Women Commission, which is a statutory body, has been laid down under section 10 of the enactment in question, which was examined in yet another proceeding, which is C.W.J.C. No. 4342 of 2008, decided on 26.07.2013, as well as the decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Convener Secretary Orissa State Commission For Women and another, reported in 2010 (8) SCC 633, which clarifies the position with regard to such power of the Commission and what they are required to do within the ambit of the Act.

(3.) Keeping the two adjudications or the decision referred to above, the impugned order, contained in Annexure-2, does become vulnerable, whatever be the justification given by the counsel representing the State Commission that it is an issue related to women and they have ample power under section 10 of the Act.