IUMINGSTAR NONGSIEJ Vs. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:

(2.) MR . Z.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that, The Meghalaya State Commission for Women has no power to direct to deduct the maintenance at the source to the employer of the petitioner. He further argued that, The Meghalaya State Commission for Women had called the parties and settled the matter for maintenance. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 had settled the matter and fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per month (Rupees ten thousand) only and directing the employer of the petitioner to deduct the amount from the salary of the petitioner and to remit the same to the respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved by the said illegal order of the Commission, the petitioner approach this court and prays that necessary direction may be given. In support of his submission, he relied on the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993, the Meghalaya State Commission for Women Act, 2005 as well as the citations in the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena versus Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in : (2010) 8 SCC 633.

(3.) SECTION 10 at Chapter -III of the Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 defines the functions of Women Commission, which is reproduced herein below: