- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12/16.04.2007 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Chairman, State Commission for Women, Jharkhand and prays for a direction upon the respondents-State not to act upon the impugned order.
(2.) The orders have been challenged primarily on the ground that the State Commission for Women is created under relevant statute i.e. the Jharkhand State Women Commission Act, 2005 which do not assign the Commission with an adjudicatory role by issuing direction in the nature of commands and further to ensure implementation of its orders in the nature of decree like order passed by duly constituted court of law. The relevant provision conferring upon the power to the commission as contained in Chapter-III Section 10 are quoted hereinbelow:- 10 (1)(Ch) rajya me mahilayo ke virudh ho rahe utpidan, yatnao aur atyacharo duara mahilayo se sambandhit vidhi aur vidhic upayo ke ullanghan ke sabhi mamlo ko saksham pradhikariyo sa samaksh prastut karna
(3.) From perusal of the aforesaid provisions under the Act of 2005 and the objects of the Act including other provisions, it is apparent that the Women Commission has been constituted as a recommendatory body. Under the provisions of the Jharkhand State Commission For Women Act, 2005 in its Chapter-III Section 10 to make recommendations in respect of such cases of torture, violation and atrocities against the women to the relevant statutory authority so as to suggest legal measures. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on complaint of the private respondent before Commission on which the Case no. 72 was initiated, the Chairperson of the Commission has proceeded to issue direction as contained in para-4 of the impugned order which are in the nature of commands or directions inter alia directing the petitioner and others to allow proper access to the private respondents to the petitioner's house and also directing them to refrain from indulging in domestic violence against petitioner/private respondent herein. The relevant portion of para-4 are quoted herein below:- 4 (1) since the petitioner Madhuri Bharadwaj and her immediate family members had been staying at the Mackluskiganj house since November 2003, and since for the past two and a half months her father-in-law, mother-in-law and youngest brother-in-law are staying in that house, and the house is still joint family property, it obviously becomes the petitioner's "Sasural" where she has every right to stay being the eldest daughter-in-law. She had been forced to leave the house due to domestic violence which will now attract the provisions of the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Os Jaikarn Sinha,. Sumitra Bharadwaj and Sundaram Bharadwaj are directed not to interfere but to allow proper access to the petitioner alongwith here immediate family to that house. The Ops will refrain from any kind of domestic violence against the petitioner. They will ensure that she is not troubled in any manner when she comes to stay in the Mackluskiganj house. They are also directed to make available to her all her household goods which she had left in that house. If the OPs fail to provide her proper access to that house as per directions of the Commission, they will be liable for prosecution under the relevant Sections of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.;