1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2046 OF 2009 Mrs.Shaila A. Madiwale. ..Petitioner. V/s. State Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Anand Madiwale i/b. Mrs.Shaila A. Madiwale in person. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.1. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 3, 2009. DATE : MARCH 3, 2009. DATE : MARCH 3, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. The Petitioner’s case is espoused by her husband as her Power of Attorney. 2. He submits that the Court below has misapplied the legal position stated in the decision reported in 1997(2) Mh.L.J.264 1997(2) Mh.L.J.264 1997(2) Mh.L.J.264 in the case of Sanjay Sanjay Sanjay Mahavirprasad Jain Vs. Vrishali Sanjay Jain Mahavirprasad Jain Vs. Vrishali Sanjay Jain Mahavirprasad Jain Vs. Vrishali Sanjay Jain. According to the Petitioner, the word "violence" appearing in the notification is wide enough to encompass the dispute arising on account of violence inflicted on a woman by third party and not necessarily a matrimonial issue. 2 3. The argument is ill-advised. In the first place, the decision in Sanjay Mahavirprasad Sanjay Mahavirprasad Sanjay Mahavirprasad Jain(Supra) Jain(Supra) Jain(Supra) pressed into service is a case where the dispute arose on account of Petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It was essentially a case where word "violence" is associated with the matrimonial dispute, for which the Court proceeded to hold that benefit flowing from notification dated 1st October, 1994 was available to the Respondent wife. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the allegation of the Petitioner is against the third party and in relation to the violence inflicted on her unconnected with the matrimonial dispute. The question is whether the expression "violence" occurring in Notification dated 1st October, 1994 would encompass such a case of the Petitioner. The answer is an emphatic no. The expression "violence" will have to be read Ejusdem gener Ejusdem gener Ejusdem generis alongwith the other situations specified in the notification dated 1st October, 1994. It covers matters relating to maintenance, property right, violence and divorce. The word "violence" appears alongwith other matters which are necessarily matrimonial issues. Thus understood, the notification has no application to the case on hand. For which reason, no fault can be 3 found with the view taken by the Court below in answering the controversy against the Petitioner and calling upon the Petitioner to pay Court fees within 14 days from the date of the order. 4. For the time being, the limited relief that can be granted to the Petitioner is to extend time to pay Court fee within six weeks from today. 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)