Maintenance Proceedings U/S 18, 20 Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act Not Suits, Ad Valorem Court Fee Not To Be Paid: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the maintenance proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, are not suits and the “ad valorem” court fee is not liable to be paid in such cases.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that imposition of a condition on a wife or a child who have been neglected and do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves to pay the ad valorem court fees calculated on ten times the amount claimed for one year would be “discriminatory, unreasonable and onerous.”

Section 18 and 20 deal with the provisions for maintenance of wife, children and aged parents.

The bench noted that a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, CrPC and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and that all such claims are exclusively within the domain of Family Courts who are required to adopt the same procedure for adjudication and assessing maintenance.

“For claims under the under Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act a fixed Court Fee of Rs. 15/- and for a claim under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure fixed Court Fee of Re. 1.25p is payable. Thus, to hold that for a claim of maintenance under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act ad valorem court fee calculated on ten times the amount claimed for one year would be discriminatory, unreasonable and onerous,” the bench said.

The court made the observations while hearing a plea moved by a minor son and his mother challenging the family court order directed them to segregate the maintenance amount claimed by each of them. The family court also directed the wife to pay the ad-valorem court fee on the maintenance amount claimed by her.

Setting aside the impugned order, the bench said that the son and the mother shall be liable to pay the fixed court fee of Re. 1.25 on the petition.

“Accordingly, it is held that proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act are not Suits and ad valorem court fee is not liable to be paid. They are proceedings on which fixed Court Fee of Re. 1.25p would be payable,” the court said.

The bench observed that the Family Court erred in not appreciating that the reference to suits, proceedings and applications in the Family Courts Act is a broad reference to all proceedings.

“If it were to be held that a wife who chooses to claim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure Code would be liable to pay fixed Court fee of Rs. 15/- or Re. 1.25p respectively but a wife who claims maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act would be liable to pay ad valorem court fee calculated at ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year, same would be discriminatory and would militate against very concept of the said provisions being beneficial, enacted for the benefit of the children and wife who have been neglected by the father or husband as the case may be and who do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves,” the court said.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Mansi Sharma, Ms. Shreya Singhal and Ms. Astha Baderiya Advocates.

Counsel for Respondent: Ex-Parte

Title: MASTER ADITYA VIKRAM KANSAGRA & ANR. v. PERRY KANSAGARA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 957

Click Here To Read Order