SALEESH BABU Vs. DEEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has come up before us for orders in view of the reference made by the Taxing Officer on the question of court fee payable on this appeal filed by the respondent in a proceeding before the Family Court.

(2.) Originally, the wife, the respondent in the appeal, initiated proceedings by way of an indigent suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,11,629/- claimed as the value of the ornaments and other assets belonging to her but appropriated by the appellant who is the husband. The proceeding was initiated before the Subordinate Judge's Court of Irinjalakuda before the constitution of Family Court having jurisdiction over the area in question. On the constitution of the Family Court, the proceeding was transferred to the Family Court at Ernakulam and the proceeding was continued. Overruling the defence put forward by the husband appellant in part, the Family Court granted the wife, the respondent herein, a decree for Rs. 1,36,875/- being the value of ornaments due to her. Since the proceeding was originally filed as a suit before the Subordinate Judge's Court of Irinjalakuda, the Family Court also ordered that the Court fee payable on the plaint would be recovered from the respondent herein in view of the fact that she was permitted to initiate the proceeding as an indigent person.

(3.) The husband, the respondent in the proceeding before the Family Court, has filed this appeal challenging the decree passed by the Family Court and he paid court fee on the appeal under Schedule II Art.3(III)(A)(1)(a) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Objection was taken by the Taxing Officer to the applicability of the said Article by pointing out that what was passed by the Family Court was a decree in a suit for recovery of money which was being valued under S.22 and 24 of the Court Fees Act and in view of S.52 of the Court Fees Act, court fee was payable ad valorem on the amount decreed. He also took the stand that Schedule II Art.3(III)(A)(1)(a) has no application since what was appealed against was not an order but was a decree. The appellant not having accepted this position adopted by the Taxing Officer, the matter : has come up before us for orders.