(1) WP. 1255.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1255 OF 2010 1. HOUSABAI LAXMAN SANAP(DEAD) 2. SHANTABAI MARUTI NAGARE Age : 69 years, Occu.: Agri. 3. DADAHARI MARUTI NAGARE Age : 50 years, Occu.: Agri. Petr.2 and 3 R/o Nimon, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar 4. SAMPAT MARUTI NAGARE Age : 45 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o KAPUS BAJAR GAT NO.6 RN 1769, COTTAGE EXCHANGE BLDG. MUMBAI-33 5. ROHIDAS MARUTI NAGARE Age : 42 years, Occu.: Agri. PERSONAL MANAGER CEAT INDIA LTD MULUND West, MUMBAI 6. GANPAT MARUTI NAGARE Age : 39 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o NIMON TQ SANGAMNER DIST AHMEDNAGAR 7. MEERABAI MHATARBA GHUGE Age : 47 years Occu.: Agri., R/o NIMON TQ SANGAMNER DIST AHMEDNAGAR 8. TARA SUBHASH GHUGE Age : 33 years Occu.: Agri. R/o M.H.B NEW MHADA COLONY POLICE LINE BLDG. ROOM NO.602 JOGESHWARY EAST, MUMBAI 9. SULBHABAI ASHOK WINCHU Age : 42 years Occu.: Agri., R/o NIMON TQ SANGAMNER DIST AHMEDNAGAR (2) WP. 1255.2010 10. JANABAI MARUTI DONGRE Age : 42 years Occu.: Agri. R/o SONEWADI, TQ SANGAMNER DIST AHMEDNAGAR 11. BHAUSAHEB NIVRUTTI NAGARE Age : 47 years Occu.: Agri., R/o : NIMON TQ SANGAMNER DIST AHMEDNAGAR 12. KAILAS NIVRUTTI NAGARE Age : 42 years Occu.: Agri. R/o NIMON TQ SANGAMNER DIST AHMEDNAGAR 13. SUNIL NIVRUTTI NAGARE Age : 35 years Occu.: Agri., R/o NIMON TQ SANGAMNER DIST AHMEDNAGAR 14. VARSHA VITHOBA FAD Age : 39 years Occu.: Agri., R/o DHARNASANGVI TQ NIPHAD DIST NASHIK 15. ASHA SUBHASH GHUGE Age : 30 years Occu.: Agri. R/o M.H.B NEW MHADA COLONY POLICE RESIDENCY, BEHIND BLDG. NO.6 UNDER GROUND FLOOR, JOGESHWARI (E) MUMBAI-60 16. SURYABHAN BABURAO NAGARE Age : 59 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o NIMON TQ SANGAMNER DIST AHMEDNAGAR 17. VISHWANATH BABURAO NAGARE Age : 52 Occu.: Agri, GANGAGIRI CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY FLAT NO.6 FIRST FLOOR, GREEN PARK ROAD NASHIK ROAD NASHIK 18. SHILA RAVINDRA KANGANE Age : 37 years Occu.: Agri. 19. SHANTIKUMAR RAMESH AVHAD Age : 45 years 20. SHOBHA RAMESH AVHAD Age : 33 years, Occu.: Agri., (3) WP. 1255.2010 21. NANDA RAMESH AVHAD Age : 31 years Occu.: Agri., Petr.18 to 21 R/o URANWALA STREET CROWN BLDG. 2FLOOR ALIBHAI PREMJI MARG MADHAVRAO SAGLE CHOWK, MUMBAI-400 007 22. BHAMABAI SHIVAJI BODKE Age : 49 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o MOH, POST CHINCHOLI TQ SINNAR DIST NASHIK 23. VIMALBAI NIVRUTTI SONAWANE Age : 45 years Occu.: Agri., R/o SHAHAPUR, TQ. SINNAR, DIST. NASHIK 24. MANDABAI RAMESH BODKE Age : 33 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o MOH, POST CHINCHOLI TQ SINNAR DIST NASHIK 25. SUNANDA ABHIMANYU GAMANE Age : 33 years, Occu.:Agri. R/O VIDYAMANDIR(BELGAON DHAGA) TQ. NASHIK, DIST NASHIK .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. BIJALABAI RABHA NAGARE(DEAD) 2. SUMANBAI BHUSAHEB GHUGE Age : 52 years Occu.:Agri. R/o DHARANGAON TQ SINNAR DIST NASHIK 3. BHIMABAI BABAN AVHAD Age : 47 years, Occu.:Agri. R/O DHULWAD TQ SINNAR DIST NASHIK 4. LILABAI W/o SUDAM AVHAD Age : 47 years, Occu.: Agri. R/O DHULWAD TQ SINNAR DIST NASHIK 5. SUSHILABAI S/o BHASKAR AVHAD Age : 43 years Occu.:Agri., (4) WP. 1255.2010 R/O THANGAON TQ SINNAR DIST NASHIK .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the respondents 2 to 5 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 28TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the stage of admission. 2] The petitioners are original defendants. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 filed suit (Special Civil Suit 66 of 2003) for the recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- for each of them as damages on account of alleged defamation of deceased Bijalabai Nagare. They asserted that the petitioners defamed deceased Bijalabai in the earlier round of litigation by contending that she was concubine of deceased Rabhaji Nagare and that she was not his lawfully wedded wife. The respondents allege that due to such false averments in the pleadings of the petitioners, deceased Bijalbai was defamed and her image had fallen down in the esteem of the public members and the relatives. Consequently each of them claimed damages of Rs.5,00,000/- on the ground of tortous liability incurred by the petitioners. The (5) WP. 1255.2010 petitioners resisted the suit by filing their written statement. They raised a preliminary objection that the suit cannot be proceeded with without payment of proper Court fees. The respondents (plaintiffs) claimed exemption from payment of Court fees in accordance with the Government notification dated 1.10.1994. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), held that preliminary issue need not be framed and the respondents were exempted from payment of the Court fees. This order dated 10.9.2009, whereby the interim application of the petitioners was dismissed, is subject of challenge in this Petition. 3] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4] The issue involved in this Petition is in respect of the proper interpretation of the Government notification dated 1.10.1994. By that notification, the women litigants have been exempted from payment of the Court fees as required under the Bombay Court fees Act, 1959 in respect of following category of Civil, Family or Criminal actions : (a) Maintenance (b) Property disputes (c) Violence and (d) Divorce. The expression "Property disputes" is further clarified by virtue of Government notification dated 23.3.2000. The expression "Property disputes" as per the explanation appended to the notification does mean property disputes (6) WP. 1255.2010 arising out of and concerning matrimonial matters. It is amply clear that the Government notification dated 1.10.1994 has been issued in pursuance to the Government policy to give helping hand to the class of woman litigants. The laudable purpose of granting exemption from payment of Court fees is limited to the cases where there are matrimonial disputes and the litigation is offspring of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. By no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the dispute pertaining to damages sought on account of tortuous liability is much much outside the pale of matrimonial dispute. The litigation of such type cannot be regarded as one which is covered by Government notification dated 1.10.1994. The counsel would submit that such litigation may come within the category of "Dispute pertaining to Violence". I do not agree. The respondents have claimed compensation and damages on account of alleged defamation of deceased Bijalabai who was their predecessor and that this has nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute as such. Considering these aspects, the impugned order is quite arbitrary and unsustainable. 5] Taking overall view of the matter, the Petition is allowed and the impugned order (Exh.86) is set aside. The trial Court is directed to register the suit and proceed with only on payment of the required Court fees on the valuation of the suit. (7) WP. 1255.2010 The respondents are at liberty to reduce the valuation. Rule made absolute accordingly. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp