The term 'wholly dependent' includes both financial and physical support, allowing the wife of an Army Officer to claim exemption from court fees despite previous employment.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Chitnis, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

2. Present Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court below unnumbered Exhibit dated 31.01.2024 which is an Application moved by Defendant No. 1 (Respondent No. 1 herein). The Application was moved for rejection of Suit Plaint under O VII R 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”). After hearing both sides, learned Trial Court in its wisdom partly allowed the Application, inter alia, directing Plaintiff (Petitioner herein) to properly value the Suit Plaint and pay requisite court fee stamp since that was the only sustainable objection raised by Defendant No. 1 in its Application.

3. Briefly stated Plaintiff is the wife of an Army Officer. She filed Special Civil Suit No. 2401/2023 seeking declaratory relief, damages, her reinstatement and injunction pursuant to her termination. She was serving with Defendant No. 1 Company as ‘Vice President’ and was terminated against which she approached the Civil Court. In the Valuation Clause as stated in the Suit Plaint, she categorically pleaded that being the wife of an Army Officer, she stood exempted from payment of court fee stamp in view of State Government Notifications dated 11.11.1965 and 02.03.1977 read with Government Circular dated 14.12.1990.

4. In short, the question before me for adjudication is whether Petitioner (Plaintiff) would be entitled for remission of court fees?

5. With the able assistance of both the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, I have perused the aforementioned Government Notifications and Circular. Relevant Notification for consideration is Notification dated 11.11.1965 since the subsequent Notification of 1977 in fact expands the scope and ambit of entitlement of family members for remission of court fees. Notification dated 11.11.1965 is appended at page Nos. 31-32 of the Petition, relevant portion of which reads thus:-

Notification No. CTF/1365/166738/N dated 11/11/1965

Notification dated 11.11.1965

Revenue and Forest Department Notification No.

CTF/1365/166738/N

11. ………. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section of the WP 206 of 2013 Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959), the Government of Maharashtra hereby remits in the whole of State the fees payable in respect of any documents of any kinds specified in the First and Second Schedules to the said Act, which are or to be Filed, exhibited or recorded in any Civil or Criminal Court by an Indian Soldier or a member of his family."

Explanation: - For the purposes of this Notification -

(a) "Indian Soldier" means any person subject to the Army Act, 1950 (XLVI of 1950) of the Air Force, 1960 (XLV of 1960), or the Navy Act, 1957 (XLH of 1957), who is domiciled in the State of Maharashtra.

(b) "member of a family" means a wife, child, father, mother, minor brother or unmarried or widowed sister, wholly dependent on an Indian Soldier.”

(emphasis supplied)

5.1. Admittedly Petitioner stands covered as member of the family of the Indian Soldier as stated therein. Principal objection raised by Defendant No.1 Company is with respect to the later part of clause (b) ( emphasis supplied). It would read as the family member “wholly dependent on an Indian Soldier”.

6. Mr. Chitnis has made an earnest effort to convince me that exemption granted under the aforesaid Notification is subject to the explanation carved out therein and more specifically clause (b) which would apply to the present case. According to him, Plaintiff is not wholly dependent on her husband due to various reasons recorded by the Trial Court in paragraph No.19 and hence the impugned order deserves to be upheld.

7. At the outset, he would submit that there is no pleading and averment in the Suit Plaint to the effect that Plaintiff is wholly dependent on her husband and hence in the absence of such pleading Plaintiff is disentitled fro