Family disputes: HC exempts women from paying court fees for sons too

MUMBAI: Women approaching courts will not be required to pay court fees for their minor son(s), the Bombay high court ruled on Thursday.

MUMBAI: Women approaching courts will not be required to pay court fees for their minor son(s), the Bombay high court ruled on Thursday.

HT Image

Until now, the exemption was limited to only minor girls.

The high court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed on behalf of a woman for the maintenance of her two minor sons. The PIL by Majlis Manch said that the family court registrar refused to place the matter before the court concerned unless the fee was paid. Since the woman was unable to pay, the matter was taken before the principal judge of the family court, the PIL said.

Majlis’ lawyer Flavia Agnes pointed out that in matrimonial matters, women are exempted from paying court fees by a notification issued by the state government in 1994 under the Bombay Court Fees Act.

Majlis Manch approached the high court after the principal judge affirmed that the 1994 notification was only for the benefit of minor daughters and not for minor sons, and therefore court fee was payable if a woman seeks maintenance for her minor son(s). Agnes said the family court could not discriminate between male and female children.

“For all practical purposes, it is the woman (mother of the minor son/s) who will have to pay the court fees, as her son obviously cannot pay it,” said the division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice MS Sonak.

According to the PIL, the stand will not only be unjust to women but will deter those who are unable to pay court fees on the amount claimed as maintenance for their son(s).

Assistant government pleader Neha Bhide opposed the PIL saying that the decision of the principal judge of the family court was in tune with the government’s decision.

She said since the exemption was granted for the benefit of women, it could not be extended to male children. Bhide also submitted that it was a source of revenue.

The submission, however, did not weigh with the bench. “There are many other better avenues available for generating revenue,” said the bench, adding, “Even if the existing revenue is collected properly that would be sufficient.”