1 wp 4959.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4959 OF 2011 Abdul Hakim S/o Abdul Jalil, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Mukdampura, Wangi Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Zahrunisa Begum W/o Bashir Ahmed, Age : 71 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Bashir Manzil, Near Grant Hotel, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. 2. Shaikh Abdul Rauf S/o Shaikh Abdulla, Age : 71 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Rahim Nagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. .. Respondents Shri H. I. Pathan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. N. Kalani, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri A. L. Tikle, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE ON RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT : 13/10/ 2011. DATE ON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 21/10/2011 2 wp 4959.11 JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent No. 1 has instituted a civil suit claiming damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony and violence caused due to the activity of the defendants. The said suit was filed on the premise that the plaintiff had purchased land Sy. No. 18 of village Khanapur on 25th November, 1974. The said land was mutated in her name. The defendants instituted civil litigation of the said land gat No. 18 and the plaintiff/present respondent No. 1 had to face the said litigation. The defendants filed suit in the year 1981. Thereafter appeal and second appeal. It was further contended by the plaintiff that the defendants had also instituted proceedings before revenue authorities. Because of all such illegal proceedings the plaintiff had to suffer mental agony, shock, pain and as such claimed compensation. According to the plaintiff the same amounted to violence. The plaintiff claimed exemption from payment of court fees. 03. The present petitioner appeared. Thereafter, filed an application for rejection of plaint on the ground that the court 3 wp 4959.11 fees is not paid as is required. The Trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application of the petitioner and held that in view of the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 01.10.1994 the plaintiff being a woman litigant is exempted from payment of court fees. The said order is assailed in the present writ petition. 04. Shri Pathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tikale, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submit that the suit as is filed cannot relate to violence. The proceedings before the Civil Court and the Revenue Court are instituted as per the legal provisions. The plaintiff cannot claim any act of violence on the part of the defendants for instituting civil proceedings. The petitioner has every right to institute the proceedings for vindicating his right. The plaintiff being a woman litigant cannot be exempted from payment of court fees while claiming damages on account of alleged mental agony alleged to have been suffered by her on account that the proceedings were filed. The Court while rejecting the application of the petitioner has not come to the proper conclusion. The notification has not been properly interpreted. 05. Shri Kalani, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 wp 4959.11 1/plaintiff strenuously contends that : a) The term violence has been given a liberal interpretation. The words used in the notification are "in matters relating to maintenance, property, violence and divorce". The words "relating to" cover not only four specified matters, but also matters incidental thereto. On account of the false litigation initiated on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff had to suffer mental pain, agony and the same would come within the definition of violence. The mental violence will also be included in term "violence". The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Sanjay Mahavirprasad Jain Vs. Mrs. Virshali W/o Sanjay Jain reported in 1997(4) Bom. C. R. 299 and another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Usha Badri Poonawala Vs. K. Kurian Babu reported in 2002(3) Bom. C. R. 215. b) The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Girish Kanaiyalal Munshi reported in 2008(4) All M. R. 306 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Ramila Rajnikant Kilachand Vs. Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand and 5 wp 4959.11 others reported 2004(6) Bom. C. R. 75 and the judgment in a case of Manoramabai Keshav Joshi Vs. Arun Keshav Joshi and another reported in 2008 (1) Mh. L. J. 905. 06. The learned counsel contends that the Trial Court has properly construed the notification and has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff being a woman litigant is not required to pay the court fees in respect of the dispute involved in the suit. 07. The limited question to be decided in the present petition is whether the plaintiff/present respondent No. 1 being a woman litigant is exempted from payment of court fees in a suit filed for damages on account of mental torture and agony alleged to have been suffered by her on account of the civil and revenue litigation initiated by the defendants. 08. The reliance is placed on the notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra pursuant to Sec. 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. The said notification reads as under : "Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959) the Government of Maharashtra hereby remits the fees payable by women litigants on 6 wp 4959.11 any of the plaints, applications, petitions, memorandum of appeals on any other documents specified in the First and Second Schedules to the Bombay Court Fees Act to be filed in any Civil Family or Criminal Courts in respect of cases relating to-(A) Maintenance; (b) Property disputes; (c) Violence and (d) Divorce." "EXEMPTION : The expression 'property disputes' shall mean property disputes arising out of concerning matrimonial matters." 09. In case of Usha Badriprasad Poonawala referred supra relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the woman who suffers from gender discrimination and violence are not prevented from seeking access to justice by being required to pay a substantial court fees. It will have to be interpreted in a manner, which will sub-serve the achievement and implementation of the goal which it is intended to achieve. The suit was filed for damages on account of defamation caused to the plaintiff in a communication by the defendant therein addressed to a fellow member of the Rotary Club. It was in that context the learned Single Judge held that the suit for damages on account of defamation would be included in the term violence. In another judgment of the 7 wp 4959.11 learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Sanjay Mahavirprasad Jain a suit was filed for damages on account of loss of reputation by publishing false advertisement in the news paper and she was exposed to mental torture. Her reputation was ruined and for that she claimed damages. In that context it was held that the action would amount to violence. The other judgments which are referred are relating to property dispute. 10. In the present case, the plaintiff has filed a suit for damages on the avernments that she suffered mental torture and agony on account of the civil suit and revenue proceedings initiated by the defendants. No doubt, the notification will have to be interpreted liberally, so as to secure the object it intends to achieve. But the same cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to enlarge the applicability of the notification to even those matters which is not within its realm. If a plaintiff has filed a suit for damages on account of the civil and revenue proceedings initiated against her, then the same would be a suit claiming damages for malicious civil prosecution. Even if the term violence is interpreted liberally as is interpreted in the case of Sanjay Mahavirprasad Jain and Usha Badri Poonawala referred supra, still the present case cannot come within the 8 wp 4959.11 ambit and purview of the term "relating to violence". In both the cases relied by Shri Kalani, the aspersions were on the character of the plaintiff and it was in that context, it was held that violence has been committed i. e. mental violence has been committed. Simply by filing civil suits for prosecuting their legal rights, it cannot be said that violence of any sort is inflicted. The said act cannot come within the ambit and purview of any of the forms of violence i. e. physical violence, mental violence, sexual violence or social violence. 11. In view of the above conspectus the impugned order is quashed and set aside. It is held that the plaintiff/present respondent No. 1 is liable to pay court fees on the amount of damages claimed by her. The Trial Court shall direct the plaintiff to pay the requisite court fees within the stipulated period and if the court fees is not paid within the stipulated period, then the further step be taken. Rule is made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 12. At this stage Shri Kalani, the learned counsel for the 9 wp 4959.11 respondent No. 1 seeks stay of the present judgment and order. The judgment is stayed for a period of three (3) weeks from today. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11