The Writ Petition challenges the Trial Court's order directing the Plaintiff to properly value the Suit Plaint and pay the requisite court fee stamp. The Plaintiff, an Army Officer's wife, sought exemption from the court fee based on specific government notifications. The core issue was whether the Plaintiff was "wholly dependent" on her husband, an Indian Soldier, to qualify for the exemption. The Court, considering the broader interpretation of "wholly dependent" to include physical and emotional support, ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting her exemption from the court fee.

1. Introduction

• Parties Heard: Mr. Kulkarni for Petitioner, Mr. Chitnis for Respondent No. 1.
• Writ Petition: Challenges the Trial Court's order dated 12.02.2024.

2. Background

• Order Challenged: Trial Court's order to Plaintiff to value the Suit Plaint and pay the court fee.
• Case Details: Plaintiff, wife of an Army Officer, seeks various reliefs after termination from Defendant No. 1 Company.
• Valuation Clause: Plaintiff claimed exemption from court fees based on government notifications.

3. Core Issue

• Key Question: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to remission of court fees as a dependent family member of an Indian Soldier.

4. Examination of Notifications

• Relevant Notifications:
  • Notification dated 11.11.1965 and subsequent notifications.
  • Exemption for court fees for Indian Soldiers and their dependents.
• Dependency Clause: Definition and interpretation of "wholly dependent" as per Notification.

5. Arguments and Court's Analysis

• Respondent No. 1's Objection: Plaintiff not wholly dependent on her husband.
• Plaintiff's Dependency: Analysis of Plaintiff's current financial and physical dependence on her husband.
• Legal Interpretation: Supreme Court and Kerala High Court decisions on "wholly dependent".

6. Court's Findings

• Dependency Context: Plaintiff's dependence includes financial, physical, and emotional support.
• Past Employment: Plaintiff's past employment does not negate current dependency status.
• Legislative Intent: Purpose of exemption notifications considered.

7. Conclusion and Order

• Quashing Impugned Order: Trial Court's order set aside.
• Exemption Granted: Plaintiff entitled to remission of court fees.
• Refund of Court Fee: Instructions for refund by Trial Court Registry.
• Acknowledgment: Appreciation for Mr. Chitnis' conduct of the case.

8. Final Directions

• Case Continuation: Suit to proceed on merits without influence from this order.
• No Expedited Trial: Request for expeditious disposal declined.
• Registry Instructions: Act on authenticated server copy for refund processing.