AVINASH SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

2026:CGHC:26127
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4173 of 2022
Avinash Sahu S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o
21 Dungaji Colony, Near Ayurvedik College Raipur Tehsil And District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Through Secretary, Gayatri
Bhawan, 13 Jal Vihar Colony Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Smt. Sushma Sahu W/o Avinash Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o 21
Dungaji Colony, Near Ayurvedik College, Raipur Tehsil And District
Digitally
signed by
SHYNA
AJAY
Date:
2026.06.29
13:21:49
+0530
Raipur Chhattisgarh
SHYNA
AJAY
--- Respondent(s)

2
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate
For Respondent/
:
Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer
State
For Respondent
:
Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate
No.2
For Respondent
:
None, despite service of notice.
No.3
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board

25/06/2026

1.
Heard.
2.
By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs :
a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call the entire records from the respondent No. 2.
b) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
set aside the impugned order dated 28/06/2022
Annexure P/1.
c) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit
and proper, may also kindly be granted to the
petitioners, in the interest of justice.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order which has been passed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila
Ayog (in short “the Ayog ”) is without jurisdiction and legal
competence. He submits that the Ayog has passed an order of
maintenance, whereas it possess only recommendatory powers.

3
While doing so, the Ayog has usurped the jurisdiction of the
Family Court. He further submits that under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C., any application for maintenance must be filed before the
competent Family Court, to be decided in accordance with law
after following the prescribed statutory procedure. This course
was not followed in the present case. Further, the impugned
order was passed on the basis of the signature of the petitioner
on certain documents under the assurance that the dispute would
be settled. He also submits that though the Commission
recorded that a compromise had been reached on written
terms/undertaking, binding the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.3, but the petitioner
contends that no such agreement was ever concluded. In fact, no
mutual compromise ever existed and as such, the impugned
order passed by the Ayog is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel would place reliance on the
judgments rendered in the matter of Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs.
Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women
and another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 633 and Shri Dr.
Wansainbor Lyngwi Vs. The Meghalaya State Commission for
Women and another reported in 2018 SCC Online Megh 25 . He
lastly prays to set-aside the impugned order.
4.
Learned counsel for the Ayo g/Respondent No.2 as also learned
counsel for the State, latter being a formal party in this case
jointly submit that a perusal of the order sheet and the relevant
documents reveal that a compromise had been arrived at

4
between the parties and accordingly, the Ayog has passed the
impugned order.
5.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
6. A perusal of the record would show that whereas both the parties
had previously appeared before the Ayo g on 28.6.2022, the
allegation now levelled by the petitioner-husband are unrebutted
due to non-appearance of the wife (respondent No.3) before this
Court, despite service of notice. Hence, in my view, the veracity of
the assertions made by the complaint cannot be overlooked at
this stage.
7.
In Bhabani Prasad Jena, the following was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in para 9, 10, 13 & 26 :
9.  It would be seen from Section 10 of the 1993 Act
that the State Commission has been authorised to
take up studies in respect of economic, educational
and health situation of the women of the State and
also the working conditions of women in the
factories, establishments, construction sites and
make its recommendations to the State
Government. The State Commission is empowered
to compile information in respect of the offences
against women and to coordinate with the State
Cell and District Cells for atrocities against women.
Further, the State Commission is competent to
receive complaints in respect of the matters
specified in Section 10(1)(d) and take up the
grievances raised in the complaint(s) with the
authorities concerned for appropriate remedial
measures. The State Commission is also given the
role of assisting, training and orienting the non-
governmental organisations in the State in legal
counselling of poor women and enabling such
women to get legal aid. Under clause (f) of Section
10(1), the State Commission is authorised to inspect

5
or cause to be inspected, a jail, remand home,
women's institution or other place of custody where
women are kept as prisoners or otherwise and take
up with the authorities concerned these matters for
remedial action.
10.  In other words, the State Commission is broadly
assigned to take up studies on issues of economic,
educational and health care that may help in
overall development of the women of the State;
gather statistics concerning offences against
women; probe into the complaints relating to
atrocities on women, deprivation of women of their
rights in respect of minimum wages, basic health,
maternity rights, etc. and upon ascertainment of
facts take up the matter with the authorities
concerned for remedial measures; help women in
distress as a friend, philosopher and guide in
enforcement of their legal rights. However, no
power or authority has been given to the State
Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights
of the parties.
13.  It is clear to us that the legislature has not gone
so far as to give jurisdiction to the State
Commission to make an order such as the one that
has been made. From whatever angle we may
examine the validity of the directions given by the
State Commission in its order dated 11-5-2009, it
appears to us that the said order was outside the
jurisdiction, power or competence of the State
Commission. It was an order which the State
Commission had no competence to make and,
therefore, a void order. The High Court instead of
correcting that order went a step further and
directed that DNA test of the child as well as the
appellant shall be conducted.
26.  We clarify that our order shall not preclude
Respondent 2 from claiming maintenance or any
other order of financial support against the
appellant in appropriate proceedings from the
court of competent jurisdiction or in the petition

6
filed by the appellant before the District Judge,
Khurda, Bhubaneshwar. Obviously the appellant
shall be at liberty to contest the claim of
Respondent 2 on all available grounds and the
court concerned shall consider and determine such
claim in accordance with law on its own merits. The
parties shall bear their own costs.
8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the principles
laid down in the aforementioned case, and considering the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner,
which have not been rebutted by any documentary or oral
evidence, coupled with the non-appearance of respondent No.3,
this Court is of the opinion that such order could not have been
passed by the Ayog . The Ayog possesses only recommendatory
powers and does not have the jurisdiction to fix the monthly
maintenance, which is the adjudicatory power vested solely with
the competent Family Court.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. However, liberty is
granted to the respondent No.3 to approach the competent Court
for seeking maintenance in accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally
disposed of. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay