A.P. Shah, J.
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail of the benefit of the notification dated October 1, 1994 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 46 of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 ('Act', for short) with a view to promote the welfare of the women, is a short question, which falls for my consideration in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. The notification dated October 1, 1994 reads as follows :
'Revenue and Forests Department Mantralaya, Bombay 400 032, dated the 1st October, 1994.
No. STP/1094/CR-859/M-1.---Whereas, the Government of Maharashtra has recently announced a policy with a view to promote the welfare of the women;
And whereas, the said welfare policy for women inter alia, provides for exemption of Court fees for women litigants in cases relating to maintenance, property right, violence and divorce.
And whereas, section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (Bom. XXXVI of 1959) empowers the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to reduce or to remit any of the fees mentioned in the First and Second Schedules to that Act :
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 any of the plaints, applications, petitions, Memorandum of appeals or any other documents specified in the First and Second Schedules to the said Act to be filed in any Civil, Family or Criminal Courts in respect of the cases relating to (a) maintenance, (b) property disputes, (c) violence and (d) divorce.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra,
Harshawardhan Gajbhiye
Deputy Secretary to Government.'
On a plain reading of this notification, it is seen that the welfare policy for the women, inter alia, provides for exemption of Court-fees for women litigants in cases relating to maintenance, property disputes, violence and divorce. It is also seen that by issuing the said notification, the Government of Maharashtra has remitted the fees payable by the women litigants on any of the plaints, applications, petitions, memorandum of appeals or any other documents specified in the First and Second Schedules to the Act to be filed in any Civil, Family or Criminal Courts in respect of cases relating to the aforesaid categories.
3. There is no dispute that the present suit is filed in a Civil Court by a woman litigant and it pertains to a property dispute. The trial Court has, however, declined to grant exemption on the ground that the present suit, which is a suit for specific performance, is not covered by the First and the Second Schedules of the Act. In my opinion, the trial Court is wrong in taking this view, because the suit for specific performance is clearly covered by Article 7 of the First Schedule. The First and the Second Schedules of the Act determine the method of assessment of fee. Schedule I contains as many as seven articles. I am not concerned with Articles 1 to 6, but Article 7, which is a residuary article reads as follows :
'Any other plaint, application or petition (including memorandum of appeal), to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or prevention of monetary loss, including cases wherein application or petition is either treated as a plaint or is described as the mode of obtaining the relief as aforesaid'.
Now a suit for specific performance is clearly a suit to obtain substantive relief capable of being valued in terms of money and as such covered by this residuary article. The petitioner is thus entitled to the exemption. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to accept the plaint without payment of Court fees. Petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
4. Certified copy expedited.