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 Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High 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