Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee, J.
1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order contained in letter No. 650/CC/WC-06/FD/04/(203) dated 13.05.2006 passed by the West Bengal Commission of Women, Kolkata.
2. By the said letter the Employment Officer-in-Charge, District Employment Exchange, Jangipur was asked to release the salary of the present petitioner which was withheld previously. By the said letter l/3rd salary of the present petitioner was asked to be deducted from the month of November, 2005 and to send the same directly to his wife Jharna Roy.
3. The fact leading to the filing of the instant revisional application may be summed up as follows:
i) That the present petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk under the Directorate of Employment in the year 1996 and was transferred to Jangipur Employment Exchange on 14th March, 2005. He was working at Rabindra Bharati University on deputation. He was asked by the Deputy Chief of U.E.I. and GB vide his letter dated 25.7.2005 to appear in person before the Chairperson of West Bengal Commission for Women on 3.8.2005 at 1.30 p.m. on the basis of complaint against him. The petitioner by his letter dated 27.7.2005 asked the Chairperson, West Bengal Commission for Women that as he was not aware regarding nature of the complaint lodged by the opposite party, he requested to supply him with the copy of the complaint. He did not receive any reply from the said Commission.
ii) On 11.11.2005 the petitioner also received one letter from the Deputy Chief U.E.I. & GB vide his letter dated 7.11.2005 by which he was directed to appear in person on 8.11.2005 at about 1.00 p.m. before the said Commission failing which the matter would be viewed seriously and disciplinary measure as per Government Rules should be taken up against him. As the petitioner received the letter on 11.11.2005, the question of appearing before the Commission on 7.11.2005 does not arise. In the said letter the Additional Director, Directorate of Employment specifically instructed the Employment Officer-in-charge, District Employment Exchange, Jangipur that unless the petitioner appear before the West Bengal Commission for Women, his salary will be withheld as instructed by the West Bengal Commission for Women. The petitioner asked the authority for releasing his salary. Though he received his salary for the month of October, 2005, his salary was not paid for the month of November, 2005. It is the case of the present petitioner that West Bengal Commission for Women is not at all empowered under the statute to give any direction upon the employer of the petitioner to withhold his salary to ensure his presence before the said Commission. The present petitioner moved before the Hon'ble High Court as per provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was numbered as W.P. No. 23752 (W) of 2005 where he prayed for relief as per prayer made in the said application. However, the said application was disposed of by the learned Single Judge without interfering with the act of the Commission against which he moved before the Division Bench which was numbered as M.A.T. No. 348 of 2006. Subsequently, he received one letter dated 23.3.2006 in which the Chairperson, West Bengal Commission for Women asked the Director of Employment Exchange to release his salary which was withheld but directed that l/3rd of the petitioner's salary should be deducted from the month of November, 2005 and the same should be sent directly to the opposite party Jharna Roy. The said appeal being M.A.T. No. 348 of 2006 was withdrawn on 10.4.2006 and there was specific observation that 'withdrawal of the said appeal should not be viewed to the prejudice to either of the parties'.
iii) Thereafter, the present petitioner made representation on 25.4.2006 before the Commission requesting him to supply the document as per list given in paragraph 22 of the revisional application. As those were not supplied, the instant application has been filed without getting certified copy of the alleged order.
4. Mr. Kausik Chanda, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended at the time of hearing that as per West Bengal Commission for Women Act, 1992 the Commission has no power either to attach the salary of any person or the authority to pass an order directing the employer to deduct l/3rd of the amount of the salary and to remit the same directly to the alleged wife. He challenged the letter by which the Commission directed the Director of Employment Exchange to withhold the salary of the present petitioner and also to pay l/3rd of the salary to the opposite party as illegal, as the same has been done though there is no such provision in the Act as mentioned earlier.
5. Mr. Chanda, further contended that the relationship of husband and wife has been challenged by the present petitioner by filing a Title Suit before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 8th Court at Alipur being T.S. No. 8 of 2006 wherein the present petitioner prayed for declaration that the opposite party who is the defendant in that case is not the legally married wife of the present petitioner and that she has no right to claim the present petitioner as her husband as the alleged marriage between the present petitioner and the opposite party is not legally valid and tenable in law.
6. It was further contended on behalf of the present petitioner that the concerned statute i.e. the West Bengal Commission for Women Act, 1992 does not contemplate for payment of any amount to the alleged wife by the husband by deducting any amount from his salary. It was further contended by Mr. Chanda that the direction by the Chairperson of West Bengal Commission for Women to the Director of Employment, West Bengal regarding withholding the salary of the present petitioner and to deduct l/3rd of the salary and to remit the same to the opposite party was made without any basis as the Act, does not provide any such provision. As such, Mr. Chanda contended that the said order is liable to be set aside.
7. The said pleas were opposed by Mr. Bhattacharya learned Lawyer for the opposite party who contended that as per West Bengal Commission for Women Act, the Chairperson has such power and for this the attention of the Court was drawn to Section 11 of the said Act wherein function of Commission has been provided. The said section runs as follow:
11. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions:
(a) investigate and examine all matters relating to the safeguards provided for women under the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) and other laws and recommend steps to be taken by the State Government for effective implementation of such safeguards;
(b review the existing provisions of the Constitution and other laws affecting women and recommend amendments thereto so as to suggest remedial legislative measures to meet any lacunae, inadequacies or shortcomings in such legislations;
(c) take up the cases of violation of the provisions of the Constitution and of other laws relating to women in the State with the appropriate authorities;
(d) look into complaints and take suo moto notice of matters relating to-
i) deprivation of women's rights;
ii) non-implementation of laws enacted to provide protection to women;
iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships and ensuring welfare and providing relief to women and taken up issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities;
(e) call for special studies or investigation into specific problems or situations arising out of discrimination and atrocities against woman and identify the constraints so as to recommend strategies for their removal;
(f) evaluate the progress of advancement of women in the State;
(g) visit a jail, destitute girls home, women's institution or other place of custody where women are kept as prisoners or otherwise and take up with the concerned authorities such maters for remedial action as may be necessary;
(h) any other matter which may be referred to it by the State Government.
(2) The State Government may consult the Commission on policy matters affecting women.
(3) The Commission shall, while investigating any matter referred to in clauses (a) and (d) of Sub-section (1), have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit and, in particular, in respect of the following matters:
a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath;
b) Requiring the discovery and production of any document;
c) Receiving evidence on affidavits;
d) Any other matter which may be prescribed.
(4) (a) The Commission shall present to the State Government every six months and at such other times as the Commission may deem fit reports of its activities together with its recommendations and the State Government shall cause them to be laid before the State Legislature as soon as possible along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations and the reasons for non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendation.
(b) It shall be the duty of the Commission to furnish comments and recommendations on any report of the National commission for Women on any matter with which the State Government is concerned as that Government may call for.
8. Special attention of the Court was drawn to Sections 11(1)(d)(i) & 11(3)(a) of the said Act. On the basis of the same, it was argued by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate for the opposite party that the order of the Commission by which 1/3rd of the salary of the petitioner was asked to be deducted was made on the basis of Section 11(1)(d)(i) read with Section 11(3)(a) of the said Act.
9. However, Mr. Bhattacharyya very frankly admitted that under the said Act there is no express provision to provide any amount as maintenance to any wife by deducting l/3rd amount from salary but at the same time, it was argued by Mr. Bhattacharyya that the Chairperson has the power to pass such order if the provision of Sections 11(1)(d)(i) & 11(3)(a) of the said Act is properly interpreted.
10. In this connection, there is dispute whether the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party. I have already stated that the marriage in between the parties is under challenge before the proper Court of Law. However, the suit by the present petitioner has been filed in the year 2006 whereas the opposite party approached the Commission in the year 2005.
11. It is also clear from the materials on record that in spite of repeated requests by the present petitioner to supply him with the copy of the complaint and other documents, the Commission did not supply him with the said copies. It is also clear from the materials on record that the alleged order of the Commission was passed without giving any opportunity to the present petitioner to place his case.
12. The statute has given the power to a wife to claim maintenance as per provision of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The wife can also file an application for maintenance under different Acts, if any matrimonial suit is filed by either of the parties.
13. As the husband did not file any matrimonial suit but filed one suit for declaration that there was no marriage in between the parties, the option remains with the opposite party i.e. the alleged wife to get relief by approaching the Criminal Court by filing application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
14. It is true that the order impugned was challenged before the Writ Court previously and the Writ Court refused to interfere with the order. Subsequently, the present petitioner preferred appeal against the said order which was allowed to be withdrawn without any prejudice to the present petitioner and I was told that the said appeal was withdrawn on the ground that the order of withholding of the salary of the present petitioner from November, 2005 has been revoked by the Commission. At the same time, the Commission asked the Drawing and Disbursement Officer to deduct l/3rd of the salary and to pay the same directly to the opposite party. Against that portion of the order, this instant revisional application has been filed.
15. On the basis of materials on record and on perusal of the provisions of the West Bengal Commission for Women Act, 1992 it is clear that the portion of order impugned was passed by the Chairperson of the said Commission though the Act does not confer such power to the Chairperson.
16. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed. The order impugned by which l/3rd of the salary of the present petitioner was asked to be deducted and to remit the same to the opposite party is hereby set aside. There would be no order as to costs.
17. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order be given to either of the parties within 10 days from the date of this order on proper application.