1 2025:CGHC:17012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1986 of 2022 1 - Pradeep Patle S/o Indra Bhushan Patle Aged About 32 Years R/o Raman Nagar Ward No. 18 Janjgir, Tahsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Woman And Child Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chhattisgarh State Comission For Women Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Commision For Women Gayatri Bhawan, 13 Jal Vihar Colony Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Manjusha Patle W/o Pradeep Patle Aged About 29 Years R/o Raman Nagar Ward No. 18 Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly call for the entire record pertinent to case of petitioner 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued suitable writ or Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 writs/ order for set-side the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 (ANNEXURE P/01) passed by respondent No 02. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is husband of respondent No. 3, whom he married according to Hindu rites on 10.07.2016, in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. After the marriage, the couple resided in Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, and had a daughter named Twinkle. However, a few months after the marriage, respondent No. 3 began exhibiting cruel behavior towards the petitioner and his family members. She allegedly demanded that the petitioner separate from his parents and took possession of his armaments. Respondent No. 3 frequently abused the petitioner, prompting him to file complaints with the police authorities. Unfortunately, the police disposed of the case under Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code without taking any action against Respondent No. 3. The petitioner also approached the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra in Janjgir, where counseling was conducted, and both parties eventually settled their disputes and agreed to stay together on 17.02.2021, resulting in the disposal of the complaint. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 filed another complaint before respondent No. 2 on 31.08.2021, making false allegations against the petitioner. Pursuant to this complaint, Respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner, who appeared before them. During a hearing on 3 11.03.2022, respondent No. 3 stated that she was residing with the petitioner, even then, respondent No. 2 granted a monthly maintenance amount of Rs 15,000 to the respondent No. 3 without jurisdiction or authority and directed the petitioner to deposit the car loan amount into bank account of respondent No. 3. This raises questions about the legitimacy of the maintenance order passed by Respondent No. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 is arbitrary and without any jurisdiction. Respondent No. 2 / Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women has passed an order directing petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/- per months and has also directed to pay loan amount with respect to loan taken for the car. Matter was directed for further vigilance for a period of six months. He contended that Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog Adhiniyam 1995 (in short, “the Act of 1955”) does not empower respondent No. 2 to grant maintenance to the respondent No. 3 / complainant. Section10 of the Act, 1995 shows the function of the Commission, according to which, the Commission can only advise to the Government. The function of the Commission is advisory/recommendatory in nature. He further submits that from the scheme of the Act, 1995, it appears that the Commission has not been conferred with the adjudicatory function, it is only an advisory/recommendatory body having advisory jurisdiction, for grant of maintenance there is specific law, hence, the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 is bad 4 in law and deserved to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that final order has come to an end. As the parties were started living together at that point of time, on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties, however, at present they are living separately from the year 2023 and a divorce petition has already been filed by petitioner in which proceedings are going on and the parties are contesting. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materiel available on record. 6. Considering aforesaid aspect of the case that the matter is before the Family Court in a divorce petition and further considering the fact that under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., a sum of Rs. 8000/- has been granted to the wife and two childrens, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, as such, present petition has become redundant as parties are already contesting in a divorce petition and further maintenance has already been awarded to the wife and children, hence, in the opinion of this Court, present case is not a fit case to be considered at this stage. 7. With this observation the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge