RAMILA RAJNIKANT KALICHAND Vs. HARSH RAJINIKANT KALICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter is placed before me as registry has raised objection on 5th May, 2004 of Court fees. Office note is that Court fee is required to be paid in view of para 9 of the plaint. However, office has also noted the fact that plaintiff is seeking exemption from payment of Court fees under the policy of Government of Maharashtra and has undertaken to pay the maximum Court fees on the date of filling of the suit. In substance, plaintiff seeks exemption in terms of notification of Government of Maharashtra dated 1st October, 1994 whereunder women litigants are exempted from paying Court fees in certain disputes.

(2.) ). Being aggrieved by the office objection, plaintiff seeks directions from the Court.

(3.) ). Ms. Sethna appearing for plaintiff invites my attention to Paras 1, 48, 61 and 69 of the plaint as also Prayer Clause (u) at page 76 and contends that suit seeks partition of the properties. The suit is filed by plaintiff in her personal capacity. In her individual capacity, she seeks relief of partition after declaring/determining her share in the properties which are more particularly mentioned in prayer (a) of the plaint. She submits that 1994 notification issued by the State of Maharashtra should be construed liberally as it is issued for benefit of women litigants. She submits that policy of the State of maharashtra as framed in 1994 being clear, benefits thereof should not be denied by a technical view of the matter. She submits that plaintiff is on par with any widow who is seeking a share in the deceased husband's HUF property. She submits that object of the notification should not suffer. She submits that considering the fact that even a prayer for maintenance is made, it is clear that due to financial constraints, plaintiff is unable to pay the normal court fee. She submits that plaintiffs case is on par with the cases in which exemption has been granted. She submits that for all these reasons, office objection be dispensed with and the plaint should be numbered and registered in accordance with rules, after extending benefit of the notification under section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.