Maintenance cases under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act are not suits, fixed court fee payable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act are not suits and that the court fees to be paid for filing such cases are not ad valorem (fee calculated according to value of suit) fees. .A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vikas Mahajan explained that the proceedings under Section 18 and 20 (dealing with maintenance of wife, children, parents) of the Act are proceedings on which a fixed court fee of ₹1.25 would be payable..The Court passed the ruling while overruling a family court order that directed a woman to pay an ad-valorem court fee in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, in respect of proceedings filed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act..Under Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, in suits for maintenance, annuities or other sums payable periodically, the claimants are required to pay ten times the amount claimed to be payable for a year..The High Court, however, noted that while claiming maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 (order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a fixed court fee of ₹15 and ₹1.25, respectively, is to be affixed. .In this background, the Court opined that it would be discriminatory, unreasonable and onerous to hold that a wife under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) must pay an ad valorem court fee..It would militate against the very idea that the HAMA provisions were meant to be beneficial and enacted for the benefit of children and wives who do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves and who have been neglected by the father or husband, the Court added..The bench also relied on the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in Mamta vs. Hari Kishan in which it was held that proceedings before family courts are not suits. .The bench opined that the family court, in this case, had erred in not applying the Mamta case ratio only on the ground that the Rajasthan High Court had referred to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan High Court Family Court Rules while there was no such rule for the Delhi High Court..“The Family Court has erred in not appreciating that the reference to Suits, Proceedings and applications in the Family Courts Act is a broad reference to all proceedings,” the Delhi High Court judgment said. .The Court added that the family court is required to adopt the same procedure for adjudicating claims for maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125, CrPC and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act..The Court proceeded to set aside the family court direction under challenge and said that the appellants need only pay the fixed court fee of ₹1.25 on the maintenance petition..Advocates Prosenjeet Banerjee, Mansi Sharma, Shreya Singhal and Astha Baderiya represented the appellants..[Read Judgment]