Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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