8/3/2019 Bhupinder Singh vs. Delhi Commission

1/4

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

SUBJECT:MAINTENANCEPETITION

Judgmentdeliveredon:01.02.2007

WP(C)No.11615/2006

BHUPINDERSINGH ...Petitioner

-versus-

DELHICOMMISSIONFORWOMEN&ORS ...Respondents

Advocateswhoappearedinthiscase:ForthePetitioner :MrK.P.Mavi

FortheRespondentNo.1:MsVeenaGoswami

FortheRespondentNo.2 :MrGauravSarin

FortheRespondentNo.3 :MrKapilJain

CORAM:-

HON'BLEMRJUSTICEBADARDURREZAHMED

BADARDURREZAHMED,J(ORAL)

1. Thiswrit petition is directed againstthe letter dated03.07.2006 issued by a

member of the Delhi Commission for Women to the Accounts Officer, MTNL,

TelephoneExchange,4thFloorHariNagar,NewDelhi.Thesubjectoftheletteris

interim maintenance. It appears that a complaint was filed with the Delhi

CommissionforWomenbytherespondentNo.3,whoisthewifeofthepetitioner.

ThepetitionerisanemployeeofMTNL.AspertherespondentNo.3'scase,sheand

hertwominorchildrenarelivingalongwithheragedmotherandherhusband(the

petitioner) was notmaintaining her for the last five years. On the basis of this

submission, theCommission,by virtue of the impugned lettermade the followinginstruction:-

TheCommissionhasgrantedSmt.SoniainterimmaintenanceofRs.6000/-(Rupees

sixthousandonly)permonth,consideringhermiserableconditiontillsuchtimeshe

getsanorderfromtheCourt.ThisamountbedeductedfromSh.BhupinderSingh's

salarybefore5thofeverymonthandmaysenddirectlytoSmt.Soniaandinformthe

Commissionontheactiontakenonthis.

8/3/2019 Bhupinder Singh vs. Delhi Commission

2/4

2. Thepetitionersubmitsthatsuchaninstruction/directionissuedby the Delhi

CommissionforWomeniswhollywithoutjurisdictionandtheCommissiondoesnot

haveanypowertopassanorderoninterimmaintenance.Thelearnedcounselforthe

petitionersubmittedthatifsuchadirection/instructionispermittedtorunitscourse

thenitwouldamounttosupplantingtheCommissionovertheCourts.Hesubmitted

thatthe rightsandobligationswithregardtomaintenanceofthepetitionerand the

respondentNo.3are governedby theHinduAdoption andMaintenanceAct,1956

and, in case of emergent situations, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure,1973.HefurthersubmitsthattherespondentNo.3hasalreadyfiledan

applicationunderSection125oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973andthesame

ispendingbeforetheMetropolitanMagistrate,RohiniCourts.Itisfurthersubmitted

thatinthatmatter,anapplicationforinterimmaintenancehasalsobeenmovedand

thathasbeenreceivingconsiderationfromthecourt.He,therefore,submitsthatin

thesecircumstances this letterwhereby theMTNLhasbeendirected todeduct anamountofRs.6,000/-eachmonthfromthesalaryofthepetitionerandtosendthe

deductedamountdirectlytotherespondentNo.3,isentirelywithoutjurisdictionand

isliabletobesetaside.

3. In response, the respondent No. 1 (theDelhiCommission forWomen) has

filedanaffidavitandtherelevantportionoftheaffidavitreadsasunder:-

8. That it ispertinent to mention that in the petitions formaintenance under

Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure being heard in the court of concerned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts Delhi, for Rohini Police Station even a

noticeofthepetitionon1.7.2006wasbeingissuedtotherespondentfor14.05.2007

whichclearlyshowsmorethan10-1/2monthsadjournmentwasbeinggivenwhile

the need ofmaintenance is always an urgent for which reason the deponent was

forced to write a letter to the department of petitioner. As such no order for

maintenance was passed by respondent No.1 it was only in the peculiar

circumstancesofthesubjectmatter,theletterwaswrittenbythedeponentinorderto

helptherespondentno.3whoisinmiserablecondition,alreadybeingwidowatthe

timeofmarriagetothepetitionerhavingachildfromherfirstmarriageandstaying

withheroldagedmotherwithoutanysourceofincome.

9. That thedeponent hadnot intentionallydefied any provisionof law. It is

pertinenttomentionthatalthougheventhedirectionwasmadeon30.06.2006and

according to the petitioner, he came to know about the letter dated 3.7.2006 and

13.07.2006,thepetitionerneveraskedforthereviewofthedirectiononanyofthe

following date of his appearance beforerespondentNo.1. It seems the petitioner

himselfthoughttheamountofRs.6,000/-permonthnormalforhischildandwifeas

8/3/2019 Bhupinder Singh vs. Delhi Commission

3/4

his salary ismore thanRs.25,000/-permonth besides otherbenefits likemedical,

LTC,etc.whiletherespondentno.3hasnosourceofincome,butasanafterthought,

thepetitionerfiledthepresentwritpetition.

The learnedcounselappearing for the respondentNo.1submittedthat this letter is

notactuallyintheformofanorderandwasissuedinexceptionalcircumstancesin

thesensethattherespondentNo.3'sconditionwasfoundtobequitemiserable.

4. ThelearnedcounselappearingonbehalfoftherespondentNo.3submittedthat

thegrievanceoftherespondentNo.3isthatnomaintenancewasbeingprovidedby

thepetitioner.

5. After considering the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the

parties,IamoftheviewthattheDelhiCommissionforWomenhadnopowerunder

the Delhi Commission forWomen Act, 1994 for issuing such a direction. An

examinationoftheStatementofObjectsandReasonsofthesaidActwouldindicate

thatthemaintaskoftheCommissionistostudyandmonitorallmattersrelatingtothe constitutionaland legalsafeguardsprovidedforwomen, toreview the existing

legislations and suggest amendments wherever necessary. The Commission for

Womenisalsorequiredtolookintothecomplaintsandtakesuomotonoticeofthe

casesinvolvingdeprivationoftherightsofwomeninordertoprovidesupport,legal

orotherwise, tohelplesswomen. TheCommissionisalsorequiredtomonitorthe

properimplementationofallthelegislationsmadetoprotecttherightsofwomenso

astoenablethemtoachieveequalityinallspheresoflifeandequalparticipationin

thedevelopmentofthenation.Section10ofthesaidActdescribesthefunctionsof

theCommission.WhileitistruethattheCommissionbyvirtueofSection10(3)has

beenvestedwithallthepowersofacivilcourtincarryingoutaninvestigationwith

regard to the matters relating to safeguards provided for women under the

constitutionandotherlawsasalsowithregardto themattersrelatingtodeprivation

ofwomen's rights, thereis,however,nopowergranted totheCommission topass

ordersandordirectionsformaintenance.Thesepowersarevestedinthecourts,both

civilandcriminal.Therightsandobligationsinrespectofmaintenancepertainingto

parties,who areHindus, are tobedetermined under theHinduMaintenanceand

Adoption Act, 1956. Such matters are to be adjudicated by a civil court.

Recognizingthefactthatsuchanadjudicationmaytakesometime,thelegislature

has enacted Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to provideimmediaterelieftosuchpersonswhodeservemaintenanceasaninterimmeasuretill

thecivilcourtdecidestheentiredisputeswithregardtomaintenance.

6. InthepresentcaseitisanadmittedfactthatproceedingsunderSection125of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are pending and even an application for

interimmaintenancehasbeenfiledonbehalfoftherespondentNo.3.Iaminformed

8/3/2019 Bhupinder Singh vs. Delhi Commission

4/4

that the next date of hearing before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is

05.04.2007.SinceitisthecaseoftherespondentNo.3,thatthesituationwithregard

tothemaintenanceisquiteemergent,bothpartiesareagreedthatontherespondent

No.3movinganapplicationforearlyhearingoftheinterimmaintenanceapplication,

the petitioner shall not oppose such an application for early hearing. And, it is

expected that the learnedMetropolitanMagistrate shall takeup the hearingof the

applicationforinterimmaintenanceattheearliestbecausethatistherequirementof

theprovisionsoflaw.

7. With these observations, the impugned letter dated 03.07.2006 is set aside.

This petition stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3

submits that the application for early hearing would be moved within two days.

Upon themaking of such application, it ishoped that the court shall take up the

matterofinterimmaintenanceandshalldisposeofthesamepromptly.

Sd/-

BADARDURREZAHMED

(JUDGE)