^•••; ^=> P. Art. 227 No. a;4^ OF 2010 PETITIONER: << years, son aged 45 years, son 4. Sita Bai, aged 50 years, wife 7. Prabhakar Rao, aged 40 years, son ofNarayan Rao, ^ ,^...--. 10. Balaram, aged about 33 years, son of Makhan Chandrakar, resident of Vivekanand Vidyapeeth, Narayanpur, post/tahsil Narayanpur, district Bastar (C.G.) 11. OfBcer in charge, police station Kumd, district Dhamtari (C.G.) CDefendantsl i ili'i".': F'-li'iii'*''"1*'!*'*'—'^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ti^^e'^^^^^^^ii^S^^ ..lCSSW "»!»• HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR Wrif Petltjon (227) No.3787 of 2010 Kunti Bat Versus Baidau aiias Ashv/ant Kumar and others (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of indiaj $SB: Hon'bls Mr. T.P. Sharma,J.) r.Somnath Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Sushil Dubey, GovS.Advocate for respondentsNo.11 and 12. ORAL ORDER (Passed on S'" Augiast, 2010) 1. Heard. 2. S have perused the order datsd 5.7.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtarj in Gase No.36A/10, whereby appitcation fited by the petltioner for exemption from paying Court fses under notlfications issued under Sectton 35 ofths Court-fees Act has been rejected. 3. Lssrned counse! for the pefitioner submits that inthe present case, the pressnt petitioner is having no income and she is residing at Amravati (M.H.). Presentiy her agricultural lands are in possession of his brofhers against whom she has fited suit for declaration and possession. She was not eaming Rs.SiXSO/- per annum. On the aforesaid ground, she has prayej for exemption in paying ths Court-fees, but the Court bslow has iiiegality dssmissed her application. 4. On the other hand, ieamed counsei for .-sspondenfs No. 11 and 12 submits that as per admisston of the petitioner, she is ov/ner of ssven acres of the land and other properties, her husband Is getting pension after his retirement whom she is residing , she is competent to pay Court-fees of Rs.62,7W/-. 5. Vide Notification F.No.9-1-86-B-XXi, dated the 1et Aprii, 1983 and Notification F,No.9-2-86-B-XXI, dated 2nd August, 1986, the State SSf •'l • if: •^/ Government has exempted the women aiong with other category of members from payment of Court-fees having annual income of less than Rs.6000/-. 6. In the present case, evfdence adduced on behaif of the petitioner is sufficient for drawing inference that her annuai income on the date of filing of the suit is below Rs.6000/- per annum. She has fiied suit for deciaratjon and possession of the agricuitural tand agasnst her brothers. The rsspondents have not adduced any evidence to show that the petitioner is having some income from any defintte source. In the absence of such evidence, evidence of the petitioner is required to be considered for assessing her income, but the Court bsiow has not considered her evidence and thereby committed iltegsiity. 7. Consequently, the petition is aiiowed. Order dated 5.7.2010 is hereby set aside: The petitioner is exempted from payment of Court-fees under the provisions ofthe aforesaid Notifications. No order as to costs. Sdf- p. Sbar1aa 3ud&e ^ ^.;,