HC stand on court fees clashes with GR

Interestingly, though, the high court administration’s approach towards such court fees is rather inconsistent. Newsline had referred one case to the office administration for clarification — suit no 6566/99 — where a woman had sought maintenance for herself as well as her son. Apparantly, an officer in the department, basing his calculations on the maintenance amount sought for the son, had slapped court fees on her. Under the Bombay Court Fees Act, fees on suits for maintenance are calculated on the value of the suit, which, among other things, depends on the amount claimed by the parties.

Initially, when Newsline approached the high court office, the Prothonotary and Senior Master, A R Bapat, argued that the state government resolution restricts itself only to women litigants. It does not anywhere refer to any exemption for any male child. The reasoning therefore goes that since a female child is held equal to a woman litigant’ as mentioned in the government resolution, court fees are not attracted where she is concerned.

The state government had in 1994, in keeping with its policy to “promote the welfare of women” exempted women litigants’ from paying court fees in cases relating to maintenance, property rights, violence and divorce, in any civil, family or criminal court in the state. “Does this resolution say anything about exemption for the male child,” asked Bapat, adding that if anybody had any objection on it, they could go to the state government.

However, when the papers of suit no 6566/99 were scrutinised, a senior officer in the department stated that the court fees was a mistake and told Newsline that the woman was eligible for a refund. Yet, the same objections were raised, this time in another case — of an HIV-positive woman seeking a share in the dues of her dead husband for herself and her son — by the department, with court fees charged on the son’s share. Unless the office objection is removed, the suit cannot be heard.

Opinions though are divided over the levy of court fees. Senior Counsel Sohoni Nanavati, for instance, finds nothing amiss if court fees are to be paid for a male child. “At first, court fees had to be paid for all cases. It was with a view to assisting a woman litigant that the Government Resolution was passed. But, if the person who is to be benefitted is a male child, why should there be an exemption,” she asked. “If the woman is litigating on behalf of her son, he is the one who is benefitting.”

Advocate Sandhya Dabholkar of the Lawyers Collective who is representing the HIV litigant, finds the decision of the department as totally lacking in merit. “The resolution passed by the government — which was the result of a campaign by the Lawyers Collective — in 1994 was expressly to facilitate a woman to avail of litigation towards certain reliefs. The question is not of who is the beneficiary,” she feels.

She argues that for a mother, the gender of the child is of no concern, since she has to raise her children with the means at her disposal. “If the Government Resolution facilitates her, why should she be asked to pay court fees depending on the sex of her child,” she asks.

With the Bombay High Court re-opening next week, it is expected that this matter will be argued out for a final judgement.