Ad Valorem Court Fee Not Required In Marital Property, Maintenace Disputes Before Family Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that petitioners are not required to pay ad valorem court fees in Family Court in disputes related to marital property and charges to ensure payment of maintenance.Justice Gurbir Singh observed that proceedings for maintenance before the Family Court were summary in nature and hence ad valorem court fees were not applicable in such...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that petitioners are not required to pay ad valorem court fees in Family Court in disputes related to marital property and charges to ensure payment of maintenance.
Justice Gurbir Singh observed that proceedings for maintenance before the Family Court were summary in nature and hence ad valorem court fees were not applicable in such proceedings.
"The dispute regarding properties of the parties to the marriage are to be dealt by the Family Court and not by the regular civil court. Jurisdiction of regular civil court is barred in such matters.Moreover, creating charge over the property is to ensure recovery of maintenance which may be granted in a suit and if a person transfers the property in order to defeat the right of wife and children for maintenance, such suit can be tried by the Family Court and not by separate suit. The petitioners-plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee."
These observations were made while hearing the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside two orders issued by the Additional Principal Judge of the Ludhiana Family Court.
The first order directed the petitioners to pay an ad valorem court fee in a maintenance petition they filed under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The second order dismissed the petitioners' application to recall the order dated 04.11.2019.
In their suit, the petitioners sought maintenance under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. They also sought declarations regarding charges on certain properties and the nullity of certain transfer deeds, as well as a permanent injunction.
The Family Court ordered the petitioners to pay court fees in accordance with the valuation of their maintenance claims;
"the suit is not valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as per relief of recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- for the plaintiffs sought by the plaintiffs against defendants..."
The petitioners submitted that the suit filed under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act by the wife and children does not fall in the category of the suit and Section 7 of the Court Fees Act is not applicable and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay ad valorem court fee.
In response, the respondents argued that the maintenance issue had been resolved earlier in a separate application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioners had already received a substantial amount as maintenance, making the current suit for maintenance unnecessary.
Considering the submissions, the Court referred to the High Court's decision in Balwinder Singh v. Sinderpal Kaur & Anr, 2019(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 720, wherein it was held,
"the proceedings initiated before the Family Court for the purpose of maintenance are petition in nature and not suit and ad valorem court fee is not liable to be paid."
Adding that the dispute regarding the parties' properties to the marriage is to be dealt with by the Family Court and not by the regular civil court, the Court said that the jurisdiction of regular civil court is barred in such matters.
Justice Singh also clarified that creating a charge over the property is to ensure recovery of maintenance which may be granted in a suit and if a person transfers the property in order to defeat the right of wife and children for maintenance, the Family Court can try such suit and not by separate suit.
As such, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the two orders from the Family Court. It ruled that the petitioners were not required to pay ad valorem court fees for their suit filed in the Family Court.
Appearance: Advocates Akash Soni, and Saurav Verma for the petitioners.
Ms. Archana Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
Title: Sucheta Garg and others v. Vineet Garg and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 221