State Mahila Ayog lacks adjudicatory jurisdiction to grant maintenance; such powers vest exclusively in Family Courts.

The Petitioner (husband) challenged an order dated 28/06/2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog (Respondent No. 2), which directed him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- to his wife (Respondent No. 3).

The Petitioner contended that the Ayog passed this order based on signatures obtained under the guise of settlement discussions, asserting that no mutual compromise was actually concluded.

Respondent No. 3 failed to appear before the High Court despite being served notice.

The Petitioner argued that the Ayog lacked the legal competence to pass adjudicatory orders regarding maintenance, a power reserved for Family Courts.

The Court primarily applied the principles governing the powers of State Commissions for Women as established in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (2010) 8 SCC 633.

Under Section 10 of the relevant State Act (mirrored in the 1993 Central Act), the Commission is empowered to perform investigative, recommendatory, and advisory functions—such as probing atrocities and assisting women in distress—but it possesses no power to adjudicate or determine the legal rights of parties.

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that maintenance claims must be decided by a competent Family Court following prescribed statutory procedures.

The Court observed that while the Ayog claimed a compromise had been reached between the parties, the Petitioner’s allegations of procedural irregularity and lack of consent remained unrebutted due to the wife's non-appearance.

Applying the Bhabani Prasad Jena precedent, the Court reasoned that the Commission’s powers are strictly recommendatory and not adjudicatory.

By fixing a specific monthly maintenance amount, the Ayog "usurped the jurisdiction of the Family Court".

The Court found that an order determining financial rights is outside the jurisdiction and competence of the Commission, rendering such an order void ab initio.

The impugned order dated 28/06/2022 was quashed as being passed without jurisdiction; however, the Court granted liberty to Respondent No. 3 to approach a competent Family Court to seek maintenance in accordance with the law.