State Women’s Commission lacks statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate rights or award maintenance to parties.

The petitioner, a Duftry at Srimanta Sankardeva University of Health Science, challenged an order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Assam State Commission for Women (ASCW) in Case No. ASCW/53/2021.

The respondent no. 3 (the petitioner’s estranged wife) had filed a case before the Commission, which subsequently directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 via salary deduction.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226, contending that the order was passed without granting him an opportunity to be heard and that the Commission lacked the statutory jurisdiction to award maintenance.

1. Whether the Assam State Commission for Women has the jurisdiction and authority under the Assam State Commission for Women Act, 1994, to determine and grant maintenance.

2. Whether the impugned order was legally sustainable regarding the principles of natural justice and statutory functions.

Section 10 of the Assam State Commission for Women Act, 1994, which outlines the Commission’s functions, including investigating safeguards for women and examining complaints of rights violations.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (2010) 8 SCC 633, which clarified that State Commissions are not courts or adjudicatory tribunals and cannot determine the rights of parties or perform judicial functions unless specifically empowered by the parent Act.

Upon reviewing Section 10 of the Act, the Court observed that while the Commission is empowered to investigate complaints and suggest remedial measures to appropriate authorities, it has not been bestowed with the power to adjudicate maintenance claims.

The Court noted that maintenance is a subject covered by specific statutes such as Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 of the BNSS) and personal laws, which provide the proper forum for such disputes.

Following the ratio in Bhabani Prasad Jena, the Court reasoned that the Commission’s role is that of a "friend, philosopher and guide" to assist women in enforcing rights, but it cannot assume the role of a judge or a tribunal to pass binding financial awards.

Consequently, the order directing salary deduction was found to be a "serious jurisdictional error".

The impugned order dated 18.12.2021 was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

The Court clarified that Respondent No. 3 is not restricted from approaching the appropriate legal forum (such as a Family Court or Magistrate) to seek maintenance under the relevant laws.