Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |    

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

 

Similar News