SANJAY MAHAVIRPRASAD JAIN Vs. VRISHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil revision, the applicant has challenged the order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit 10, whereby the objection raised to the counterclaim on the ground of non-payment of Court-fees is turned down by the trial Court.

(2.) ORIGINALLY, the present applicant filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the present non-applicant. His case was that that he was married to the non-applicant on 21-5-1995 in Arya Samaj Temple, Amravati, and thereafter in one another temple. He claimed that the marriage was registered before the Registrar of Marriages, on 22-8-1995 and after the marriage, the non-applicant respondent stayed with him and had also conceived. They decided to terminate the pregnancy and accordingly it was terminated. He further pleaded that the non-applicant was taken away by her father as he had never approved of this alliance between the applicant and the non-applicant, and further reiterated that the non-applicant was living in her fathers house without any justification and had deserted the applicant and it was on that count that he prayed for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) THE non-applicant/respondent filed her say and flatly denied the factum of marriage between herself and the applicant/petitioner. She contended that the applicant/petitioner had never married her and all the contentions regarding the marriage and the pregnancy etc. were false and concocted allegations. She claimed that her signatures on the blank forms were received by the petitioner and the petitioner was out to destroy her reputation by publishing false advertisement in the newspapers. She flatly denied that she was ever married, muchless in Arya Samaj Mandir. She contended that she was exposed to mental torture, her reputation was ruined and as damages, she claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of counter claim. She also prayed that she should be exempted from payment of Court-fees on the counter claim, under section 46 of the Bombay Court fees Act, and relied upon a Notification dated 1-10-1994 which exempted the woman from paying the Court fees in respect of the petitions filed by them. The trial Court has permitted the said counter claim to be raised without payment of Court fees and has held by the impugned order that the applicant/respondent stands exempted from payment of Court fees because of the Notification. In short, according to the trial Court, the Notification covered the disputes like the one at hand.