The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Bench has held that the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog possesses only recommendatory powers and does not have the jurisdiction to fix monthly maintenance, which is an adjudicatory power vested solely with the competent Family Court. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ayog was quashed. However, liberty was expressly granted to the wife to approach the competent Court for seeking maintenance in accordance with law.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that since the wife failed to appear and rebut the petitioner’s allegations, the veracity of those assertions could not be overlooked at this stage. The Bench held that while a State Women’s Commission is empowered to receive complaints, gather statistics, probe into atrocities, and take up matters with concerned authorities for remedial measures, “no power or authority has been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties”. The Bench had further held that any order made by the State Commission going beyond its recommendatory powers is an order “outside the jurisdiction, power or competence of the State Commission” and is therefore a void order.
Also Read Honeymoon Murder Case: Meghalaya High Court Upholds Bail Granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi
Briefly, a husband, Avinash Sahu, challenged an order passed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog (State Women’s Commission), which directed him to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife, Sushma Sahu. The petitioner contended that his signatures were obtained on certain documents under the assurance that the dispute would be settled, and that no mutual compromise was ever actually concluded. He argued that the Ayog had no jurisdiction or legal competence to pass such an order, and that in doing so, it had usurped the jurisdiction of the Family Court, the only competent forum to decide maintenance claims under Section 125 of the CrPC. Notably, the wife (Respondent No. 3) did not appear before the High Court despite service of notice, leaving the petitioner’s allegations unrebutted.
