BIPIN DALPATBHAI SHAH Vs. VASANTBEN RASILAL ZAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common Order will dispose of the Office objection raised in the above mentioned proceedings in respect of non-payment of court fee. All these proceedings are either for grant of letters of administration or succession certificate. In the two matters, the proceedings have already been disposed of but they have been placed before this court again in view of the fact that the petitioners therein seek to amend the original Schedule by adding certain more assets.

(2.) NORMALLY under the Bombay Court Fees Act, in all these proceedings, court fee is required to be paid by the petitioner irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner is a male or a female. However, the Government of Maharashtra has framed "policy for the Women" with a view to promote welfare of women and the said policy inter alia, provides for exemption of court fees for women litigants. Accordingly, the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act,has declared remission of fees payable by women litigants on any of the plaints, applications, petitioners, memorandum of appeals or any other documents specified in the First and Second Schedule to the said Act, to be filed in any Civil family or Criminal Court in respect of the cases relating to (a) maintenance, (b) property dispute, (c) violence and (d) divorce. This notification was issued on 1st October, 1994.

(3.) AFTER the issuance of this notification, there appears to have been a lot of controversy since different interpretations were made as to what was meant by "property disputes". Some of the subordinate Courts granted total exemption of the court fee to women litigants irrespective of the nature of the property dispute. Whereas some courts held that the term "property disputes" was not comprehensive so as to include any dispute filed by women litigants. This question also arose before this court in several proceedings. In Jyoti S. Doshi Vs. Hindustan Hosiery Mills. (2000 (4) ALL MR 389), Gokhale J. has referred to 10 such decisions given by this court in different proceedings. In the present cases, we are concerned only with the proceedings wherein objections are filed for obtaining probate or letters of administration or succession certificate. I shall therefore, refer to only those decisions which were given in Testamentary Petition. In Test. Petition No. 284/1996 decided on 26th June. 1996 by K. G. Shah, J. (unreported), the petitioner widow had filed a petition for obtaining probate in respect of the Will of her deceased husband. She claimed benefit of the exemption of the notification dated 1st October, 1994 but the Office of the Prothonotary took the view that the said notification did not apply to her petition. The learned Judge, after hearing both the parties as well as the Government Pleader came to the conclusion that there was no indication anywhere in the notification showing that it was not intended to apply in relation to the applications or petitions for probate or letters of administration. He further held that there is no indication in the notification to show that it does not apply in relation to the application for succession certificate.