Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Family Court : Ad Valorem Court Fee Not Applicable in Maintenance Cases: Punjab and Haryana High Court"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified the application of ad valorem court fees in maintenance cases filed before Family Courts. The court, in a decision pronounced on October 31, 2023, ruled that ad valorem court fees are not applicable in such cases.

The judgment came in response to a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging two orders of the Family Court. The first order, dated November 4, 2019, directed the petitioners to pay ad valorem court fees in a maintenance petition. The second order, dated February 3, 2020, dismissed the application seeking the recall of the first order.

The crux of the matter revolved around whether plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fees on suits pending before Family Courts or if the proceedings initiated before Family Courts for maintenance should be considered petitions or suits.

The court's ruling drew attention to the nature of proceedings in Family Courts. It referred to the precedent set in the case of Balwinder Singh Versus Sinderpal Kaur and another, 2019(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 720, which held that proceedings initiated before the Family Court for maintenance are petitions and not suits. Consequently, ad valorem court fees are not payable in such cases.

In the judgment, Justice Gurbir Singh stated, "The entire purpose of setting up Family Courts will be frustrated if proceedings in matrimonial disputes are treated as suits, and ad valorem court fees are imposed. This would make justice inaccessible to many litigants in distress, destroying the very object of setting up Family Courts."

The court emphasized that Family Courts are designed to simplify rules and procedures to deal effectively with disputes in matrimonial matters, bringing relief to women and children who have been abandoned by their husbands and fathers.

Consequently, the impugned orders dated November 4, 2019, and February 3, 2020, passed by the Family Court, Ludhiana, were set aside, and the petitioners were declared not liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the suit filed before the Family Court.

This ruling serves as a significant clarification on the application of court fees in maintenance cases within the jurisdiction of Family Courts and aims to provide easier access to justice for those in need.

Date of Decision: 31 October  2023

Sucheta Garg and others  VS Vineet Garg and others

 

Latest Legal News