SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HARSHA PRADEEP PATIL – Appellant
Versus
SAYANKABAI RAGHO PATIL AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP 271/2016



1 WP 271 of 2916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Writ Petition No.271 of 2016

Harsha Pradeep Patil.

.. Petitioner.

Versus

Sayankabai Ragho Patil & Others. .. Respondents.

--------

Shri. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate, for petitioner.

Shri. P.P. Dhorde & Smt. V.P. Dhorde, Advocates, for

respondent Nos.1 to 5.

----------

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2016

ORDER:

1)

The petition is filed to challenge the order

made on Exhibit 43 from Regular Civil Suit No.181/2012

which is pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Jalgaon. The said suit is filed by the present

petitioner for relief of partition of joint Hindu family

property against brother-in-law and others. Husband of

the petitioner is dead and so she has claimed the share of

her husband from the joint Hindu family property. The

2 WP 271 of 2916

application at Exhibit 43 was filed by the defendants for

rejection of plaint on the ground that present petitioner,

plaintiff has not paid requisite court fees on the claim.

The petitioner has not paid court fees as she is claiming

that she is exempted from the payment of Court fees in

view of the Government Notifications issued in this

regard. The trial Court has held that the subject matter of

the suit, the relief of partition, is not covered by the said

Government Notifications and so the application is

allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay court fees.

Both the sides are heard.

2)

Both the sides placed reliance on some

reported cases in which there is interpretation of the two

notifications issued by the State Government. The

notifications are as under :-

"REVENUE AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT

Mantralaya, Bombay 400032, dated 1st October, 1994.

Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.

No. STP. 1094/CR-859/M-1 – Whereas, the Government

of Maharashtra has recently announced a policy with a

view to promote the welfare of the women;

And whereas, the same welfare policy for women, inter

alia, provides for exemption of Court fees for women

3 WP 271 of 2916

litigants in cases relating to maintenance, property

right, violence and divorce;

And whereas, section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act,

1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959), empowers the State

Government by notification in the Official Gazette to

reduce or to remit any of the fees mentioned in the

First and Second Schedules to that Act;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom.

XXXVI of 1959), the Government of Maharashtra

hereby remits the fees payable by women litigants on

any the plaints, applications, petitions, Memorandum

of appeals or any other documents specified in the

First and Second Schedules to the said Act, to be filed

in any Civil, Family or Criminal Courts in respect of

cases relating to (a) maintenance, (b) property disputes

(c) violence and (d) divorce.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Maharashtra.

HARSHAWARDHAN GAJBHIYE

Deputy Secretary to Government."

********

"REVENUE AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT

Mantralaya, Bombay 400032, dated 23rd March, 2000

Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.

No. S. 30/2000/673/CR-199/M-1 - in exercise of the

powers conferred by section 46 of the Bombay Court

Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959), the Government

of Maharashtra hereby amends the Government

Notification, Revenue and Forests Department No.

STP.1094/CR-859/M-1 dated the 1st October, 1994, as

follows:-

In the said Notification, the following Explanation

shall be added at the end, namely:-

4 WP 271 of 2916

“Explanation – The expression “property disputes”

shall mean property disputes a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top