Kanhu Charan Barik Vs Convey Secretary

1 . Though notice is sufficient on opposite party no.3 and learned counsel have entered appearance on behalf of opposite party no.3 none appears when the matter is called. In view of the order that is to be passed today in the writ application, this Court is not awaiting further for appearance of opposite party no.3.

¶15

2 . The writ application has been filed challenging the office letter dated 03.06.2017 issued by the Member, Odisha State Commission for Women on 06.06.2017 to the opposite party no.2 recommending for deducting monthly maintenance amount at Rs.8,000/- per month from the monthly salary of the petitioner who was then working as

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Diarist in the establishment of the opposite party no.2authority.

¶18

3 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission for Women does not have any authority to pass such order. He refers to the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 and the Rules, 2006 to submit that such order directing deduction of a portion from the salary is inconsistent with the powers conferred by the statute and rules.

¶19

4 . In response, the learned counsel, Mr. K.K. Mishra appearing for the Odisha State Commission for Womenopposite party no.1 submits that the letter dated 03.06.2017 issued by the Odisha State Commission for Women is recommendatory in nature and it is always open for the authority to take a decision on the said recommendation or not.

¶20

In response, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a component from salary @ Rs.8,000/- per month was deducted for two months and deposited as would be evident from the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the opposite party no.2.

¶21

5. It is agreed at the Bar that during subsistence of the letter issued on 06.06.2017, competent court i.e. learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar by order dated 13.09.2017 in I.A. No.75 of 2017 arising out of C.P. No.686 of 2016 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has passed the following order:

¶22

“Opposite party husband (Kanhu Charan Barik) is directed to pay pendente lite maintenance of rupees six thousand two hundred fifty per month to the petitioner (three thousand for the wife and

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

rupees three thousand two hundred fifty for the son) with effect from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 11.07.2017 by the eleventh day of every succeeding month by English Calendar. In view of the bar necessities of the petitioner and the son it is further directed that the aforesaid amount of pendente lite maintenance shall be deducted from the salary of the opposite party husband every month by his employer to be paid to the petitioner. Opposite party is further directed to pay litigation expenses of rupees three thousand to the petitioner wife which shall be recovered by the petitioner wife under due recourse of law in case of non-payment within two months.”

¶25

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-husband in the writ application has also complied with the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for payment of maintenance @ Rs.6,250/per month for the wife and Rs.3,250/- for the son and litigation expenses for a consolidated sum of Rs.3,000/has also been paid.

¶26

7. In considered view of this Court, after the interim order dated 06.04.2018 was passed, by this Court directing stay of operation of the letter dated 06.06.2017 the letter issued by the opposite party no.1-State Commission for Women need not be worked out further as the matter of payment of maintenance stands covered by the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court under Section-24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶27

8. It is directed that letter issued by the State Commission for Women-opposite party no.1 shall not be given effect to in view of the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.P.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

No.686 of 2016 granting maintenance having occupied the field since 13.09.2017.

¶30

9. Keeping the question of law raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner open, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

¶32

Jyostna

¶33

Signature Not Verified