VIMALABAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-applicant being aggrieved by order 19-2-92 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 9-B/91 by the learned fifth Additional District Judge, Ujjain, holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to exemption from the Court-fees under Notification No. F.9.83-b-XXI dt. 1-4-1983 published in M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan) dt. 1-4-1983, page 1068 have filed this revision.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the suit stating that despite her family planning operation she had conceived and later on delivered a female child. On basis of these facts she sued the authorities under common law for recovery of damages. In the suit she pleaded that her monthly income is not above 400 rupees. The matter was contested even on the matter of Court-fees. The learned trial Court refused to exempt the present applicant basically on the ground that the plaintiff has not stated in her statement/application about the income of her husband as in the opinion of the Court the responsibility to maintain the child was also of the husband.

(3.) Shri Trivedi submits that the approach of the learned Court below is patently wrong and if an interpretation has made by the learned trial Court is accepted it would make the Notification nugatory. His further submission was that this Notification is a piece of beneficient legislation and has been brought in existence to help and assist poor persons. According to him the Notification applies to those persons who are parties before the Court. On the other hand Shri Sen submits that according to the Notification a person would be entitled to exemption if from all sources the income of the plaintiff is less that Rs.6,000/- per year. According to him income of the husband has to be clubbed with the income of the wife as she is the plaintiff.