The Punjab and Haryana High Court has determined that individuals filing petitions concerning marital property and maintenance payment disputes in the Family Court are not required to pay ad valorem court fees.
Justice Gurbir Singh emphasized that Family Court proceedings pertaining to maintenance are characterized by their summary nature, rendering ad valorem court fees irrelevant to such cases.
“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 remarks were made during the assessment of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, aimed at overturning two directives issued by the Additional Principal Judge of the Ludhiana Family Court.
The initial directive mandated the petitioners to submit an ad valorem court fee for their maintenance petition filed under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The second directive rejected the petitioners’ plea to challenge the order dated 04.11.2019.
In their legal action, the petitioners sought maintenance under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. They also requested declarations regarding charges on specific properties, the annulment of certain transfer deeds, and a permanent injunction.
The Family Court instructed the petitioners to pay court fees based on 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 argued that the legal action initiated by the wife and children under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act doesn’t meet the criteria of a “suit,” and therefore, they contended that Section 7 of the Court Fees Act should not be applicable to their case. They maintained that they should not be compelled to pay an ad valorem court fee.
In response, the respondents contended that the maintenance matter had already been addressed through a separate application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. They pointed out that the petitioners had already received a substantial amount as maintenance, making the current maintenance lawsuit unnecessary.
“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.”
Considering these arguments, the Court referred to the legal precedent established by the High Court in the case of Balwinder Singh v. Sinderpal Kaur & Anr, 2019(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 720, in which it was concluded that,
Stressing that marital property disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Family Court and not the standard civil court, the Court clarified that the standard civil court does not have authority over such matters.
Justice Singh further explained that imposing a charge on the property serves the purpose of ensuring the potential recovery of maintenance awarded in a legal proceeding. If an individual tries to transfer the property with the intention of impeding the rightful claims of the wife and children for maintenance, such cases should be handled by the Family Court, rather than through a separate legal action.
As a result, the Court accepted the petition and nullified the two orders issued by the Family Court. It ruled that the petitioners were exempt from paying ad valorem court fees for their case filed in the Family Court.
