Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, the appeal was filed against the order dated 22-02-2020, whereby the Family Court had directed Appellant 2 to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the amount claimed by her, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva* and Vikas Mahajan, JJ., opined that the proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘HAMA’) were not suits and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid, and accordingly set aside the order dated 22-02-2020.
Background
In the instant case, the appellants, wherein Appellant 1 was the wife of the respondent and Appellant 2 was the son of the respondent, filed the subject proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘the Act’), and the Family Court held that the appellants had filed a suit under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act and ad-valorem Court fee was payable in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (‘the CF Act’).
The question before the Court was whether ad valorem court fee was payable on a claim for maintenance filed under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act.
Analysis Law, and Decision
The Court opined that wherever a Family Court had been set up by the State Government, the Family Court had the exclusive jurisdiction over all the proceedings or suits for maintenance under the HAMA, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the HM Act’), the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) or any other statute and in the instant case, the proceedings had been instituted before the Family Court. The Court further opined that the maintenance could be broadly claimed by a Hindu wife under Section 18 of the HAMA, Sections 24 and 25 of the HM Act and Section 15 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
The Court noted that the Trial Court vide its impugned order had held that a claim under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA would be by filing a suit and as such ad valorem Court fee would be payable as per Section 7(ii) of the CF Act.
The Court further opined that if it was held that a wife who claimed maintenance under the HM Act and CrPC would be liable to pay Court fee of Rs. 15 or Re. 1.25p respectively, but a wife who claimed maintenance under HAMA, would be liable to pay ad valorem court fee calculated at ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year, would be discriminatory, unreasonable and onerous. The unreasonableness was further highlighted considering the fact that the proceedings would be before same forum, which would apply the same procedure and take into account the same factors for assessment of maintenance.
The Court relied on Mamta v. Hari Kishan (‘Mamta Case’) 2003 SCC OnLine Raj 106, wherein it was held that the proceedings before the Family Courts were petitions or applications, and not suits, thus the ad valorem court fees was not payable. The Court also relied on Balwinder Singh v. Sinderpal Kaur (‘Balwinder Singh Case’) 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6930, wherein it was again held that the proceedings before the Family Courts were not suits and if a petition was filed before the Family Court for maintenance, then as per Section 7 of the CF Act, ad valorem court fee was not liable to paid because of the proceedings initiated were in the nature of petition and not suit.
The Court opined that in the present case, the Family Court had not applied the ratio laid down in Mamta Case (supra), because the Division Bench had referred to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan High Court Family Court Rules, 1994 and there was no such rule framed by the Delhi High Court. The Court opined that the Family Court had erred in not appreciating that the ratio laid down in Mamta case(supra).
The Court opined that “in Mamta case (supra) and Balwinder Singh case (supra) the ratio is that the object of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was to set up a forum for settlement of family disputes with due emphasis on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and further to eliminate the rigid rules of procedure and evidence.”
The Court opined that the Family Courts Act, 1984 (‘the FC Act’) was enacted pursuant to the 59th Report of the Law Commission, and the FC Act made an attempt to simplify the rules of evidence and procedure to enable a Family Court to deal effectively.
Thus, the Court relied on Karbhari Vithoba v. Anusuya Karbhari 1956 SCC OnLine Bom 97 and Srikant Chand v. Mt. Ram Mohini 1957 SCC OnLine Pat 234 and held that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the HAMA were not suits, they were the proceedings on which fixed court fee of Re. 1.25p would be paid and ad valorem court fee was not liable to be paid.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order dated 22-02-2020.
[Aditya Vikram Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6424, decided on 12-10-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Prosenjeet Banerjee, Mansi Sharma, Shreya Singhal and Astha Baderiya Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
