1 WP No.2985/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2985 of 2011 Dasarath Gopal Mhatre and ors. ... Petitioners versus Poonam Jayesh Mhatre ... Respondent ... Mr.K.K. Malpathak for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 20th June 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13 December 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division rejecting the petitioners’ application for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Respondent is the widow of the son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2. It appears that the petitioners and the respondent form a joint family which owns substantial properties. Petitioners filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.746 of 2009 in the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division for an injunction restraining them from developing and/or alienating the suit properties. Subsequently, she 2 WP No.2985/11 amended the plaint stating that the total valuation of the suit properties was Rs.10 crores and her share therein was valued at Rs. 1.5 crores. She claimed Rs.1.5 crores from the petitioners. As she had not paid any court fee stamp on Rs.1.5 crores claimed by her, the petitioners made an application for rejecting of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order, application was rejected. Petitioners are before this court against the said order. 3. By a notification dated 1 October 1994 issued under the Bombay Court Fees Act, Government of Maharashtra has exempted women litigants from paying of court fees in cases relating to maintenance, property disputes, violence and divorce. The expression “property disputes” in the notification dated 1 October 1994 has been explained by a further notification dated 23 March 2000, to mean disputes arising out of and concerning matrimonial matters”. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the present dispute did not arise under the matrimonial matters, respondent was required to pay the stamp duty on Rs.1.5 crores which was claimed by her. 5. The expression “matrimonial matters” has not been defined in either of the notifications. Two interpretations of the expression “matrimonial disputes” are possible. The first interpretation is that the dispute arising out of the dispute between husband and wife concerning or relating to their relationship as husband and wife 3 WP No.2985/11 would be matrimonial dispute. The second interpretation is that it is a dispute relating to any matter concerning, relationg to or arising out of the rights and obligations (including rights and obligations relating to any property) of a woman and husband or his family arising out of their relationship arising due to, concerning or relating to the marriage. A woman, by reason of the marriage becomes a member of the joint family of her husband. Till her marriage, she is not a member of that joint family of her husband and has no share in the family property of her prospective husband. On account of the matrimony i.e the marriage she is entitled to a share in the joint family of her husband and therefore the dispute arises out of the matrimony/marriage. 6. In my view, taking into consideration the object of the notifications dated 1 October 1994 and 23 March 2000 giving exemption to women litigants from payment of a stamp duty to empower them to file a suit without payment of court fees the second interpretation must be followed and broad meaning must be given to the expression “matrimonial matters” used in the notification dated 23 March 2000. Accordingly, when a woman files a suit for partition of a joint family property of her husband, no court fee would be required to be paid by her. So interpreted, the present suit appears to be in respect of a property dispute of the joint family property and consequently, court fee was not payable. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)