The Gauhati High Court has unequivocally held that State Commissions for Women lack the statutory authority to adjudicate or order maintenance payments, reinforcing the principle that such bodies are investigative and recommendatory, not adjudicatory. This ruling clarifies a critical boundary in women’s rights enforcement and has immediate implications for practitioners navigating administrative remedies versus judicial forums.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Chandan Jyoti Deka, a Duftry at Srimanta Sankardeva University of Health Sciences, was directed by the Assam State Commission for Women (ASCW) to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife, respondent no. 3, Jahnabi Das. The order was passed on 18.12.2021 and mandated monthly deduction from the petitioner’s salary. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the Commission acted beyond its statutory powers.
Key Facts
- The petitioner and respondent no. 3 are estranged spouses.
- Respondent no. 3 filed a complaint with the Assam State Commission for Women, registered as ASCW/53/2021.
- The Commission passed an order on 18.12.2021 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 monthly as maintenance.
- The order directed that the amount be deducted directly from the petitioner’s salary account.
- Respondent no. 3 did not appear before the High Court despite service of notice, which was held complete by an earlier order dated 04.02.2026.
- The petitioner had no prior opportunity to be heard before the impugned order was passed.
Procedural History
- 18.12.2021: Assam State Commission for Women passed impugned order directing maintenance payment of Rs. 10,000/month from petitioner’s salary.
- 04.02.2026: High Court order confirming completion of service of notice upon respondent no. 3.
- 19.03.2026: Writ petition heard and decided by the Gauhati High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Shri S. Borthakur, contended that:
- The Commission had no power under the Assam State Commission for Women Act, 1994 to determine or direct maintenance payments.
- The order violated principles of natural justice as no hearing was granted.
- The Commission’s functions are strictly recommendatory and investigative, not adjudicatory.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women was directly applicable, as the Assam Act is in pari materia.
For the Respondent
The State Counsel, Shri J. Handique, conceded that while the Commission’s intent may have been benevolent, it lacked jurisdiction to pass an order of maintenance. No substantive defense was advanced on behalf of respondent no. 3, who did not appear.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 18.12.2021, declaration that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to order maintenance, and costs.
The Legal Issue
Can the Assam State Commission for Women, under the Assam State Commission for Women Act, 1994, pass a binding order directing payment of maintenance from a person’s salary, and does such power exist either expressly or by necessary implication under Section 10 of the Act?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (2010) 8 SCC 633, where the Supreme Court held that State Commissions for Women are not adjudicatory bodies and cannot issue directions akin to courts. The petitioner argued that Section 10 of the Assam Act, which mirrors the Orissa Act, only empowers the Commission to investigate complaints, recommend remedial measures, and report to the State Government. The power to determine maintenance - a substantive civil right - is exclusively vested in civil courts under personal laws or under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS). The Commission’s role, the petitioner submitted, is that of a facilitator, not a judge.
For the Respondent
The State Counsel did not contest the jurisdictional limitation. He acknowledged that while the Commission’s objective was to protect women’s rights, the specific power to order maintenance was not conferred by the Act. He conceded that the order was ultra vires and supported the petitioner’s prayer for quashing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 10 of the Assam State Commission for Women Act, 1994, which enumerates the functions of the Commission. The Court noted that while the Commission is empowered to investigate complaints of deprivation of rights, non-implementation of laws, and discrimination, its powers are confined to recommending remedial action to appropriate authorities. The Court emphasized that nowhere in Section 10 is there any provision granting the Commission the authority to determine financial obligations, adjudicate disputes, or issue binding orders for maintenance.
"The State Commission is not a tribunal discharging the functions of a judicial character or a court."
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bhabani Prasad Jena, which explicitly rejected the notion that the power to receive complaints implies the power to adjudicate them. The Court held that reading such an implied power into Section 10 would violate the principle of statutory construction that powers must be expressly conferred, especially when they affect fundamental rights like property and income.
The Court further observed that maintenance is a substantive legal right governed by specific statutes - Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS), the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and other personal laws. These statutes provide detailed procedures, evidentiary standards, and appellate mechanisms. The Commission, lacking any such procedural framework, cannot substitute itself for these judicial forums.
The Court also noted the absence of any hearing granted to the petitioner, which compounded the jurisdictional defect into a violation of natural justice. However, the primary ground for interference remained the lack of statutory authority.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Assam State Commission for Women directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance, to be deducted from his salary, is set aside. The interim order previously passed is made absolute. The petitioner is awarded costs of Rs. 10,000. The respondent no. 3 is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil or criminal forum for maintenance, if she so chooses.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Orders by Women’s Commissions Are Ultra Vires
- Practitioners must immediately challenge any maintenance order issued by a State Commission for Women, regardless of the state’s legislation, as all such Commissions operate under analogous statutory frameworks.
- No Commission can lawfully direct salary deductions, impose fines, or determine financial liabilities without express statutory authority.
Remedial Action ≠ Adjudication
- The Commission’s role is limited to: (a) receiving complaints, (b) investigating, (c) recommending remedial measures to authorities, and (d) reporting to the State Government.
- Any attempt to convert these recommendations into binding orders - such as directing payment, imposing penalties, or ordering custody - constitutes jurisdictional overreach.
Procedural Fairness Remains Critical
- Even if a Commission had jurisdiction, failure to provide a hearing before passing an order affecting livelihood violates Article 14 and Article 21.
- Practitioners should raise both jurisdictional and procedural grounds in petitions under Article 226.
Strategic Takeaway
- Clients seeking maintenance must be advised to approach civil courts or file applications under Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS.
- Commissions can be used to gather evidence, secure interim relief through police or social welfare departments, or initiate public interest advocacy - but not to issue enforceable monetary orders.
The Burden of Proof Is on the Commission
- Any party claiming that a Commission has implied powers must demonstrate express legislative intent. Mere functional overlap with judicial outcomes does not confer jurisdiction.
