DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.:—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 husbands 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.

4. In support of her contention Ms. Sethna places strong reliance upon decisions of this Court reported in (i) (Vidya Shivajirao Patil (Petition for Letter of Administration))1, 1999(3) Bom.C.R. 787 : 1999(2) Mh.L.J. 643; (ii) (Jyoti Doshi v. Hindustan Hosiery Mills)2, 2000(3) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)813 : 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 228; (iii) (Usha Badri Poonawalla v. K. Kurian Babu)3, 2002(3) Bom.C.R. 215 : 2002(2) Mh.L.J. 951 and a judgment of another Single Judge of this Court reported in (Shri Bipin Dalpatbhai Shah v. Vasantben Rasilal Zaveri)4, 2001(4) All.M.R. 1. In the submission of Ms. Sethna, the explanation added to the notification dated 1st October, 1994 would not alter the position, insofar as, plaintiff is concerned. She submits that an unreported decision of this Court in (Writ Petition No. 1896 of 2000, dated 4th April 2001)5, would not in any manner affect the law laid down in the earlier decisions referred to above.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Patel appearing for some of the defendants, invites my attention to the explanation below the notification dated 1st October, 1994, introduced with effect from 23rd March, 2000 and contends that the word used therein is "means" and not "includes". He submits that whenever such word is used, the intention is to exhaust all categories and not give any extended or wider meaning to the provisions. In any event, he submits that this is not a suit for maintenance. He submits that the expression "property disputes" has been defined in the explanation to mean property disputes arising out of and concerning matrimonial matters. This being the position, it is clear that efforts are being made to avoid payment of Court fees. He submits that the substance of the matter will have to be considered. So considered, the claim is not an individual claim. It is made on behalf of