GADDAM LINGA REDDY Vs. GADDAM RUKMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for refund of the excess Court-fee of Rs. 375 paid by him in the following circumistances : In the verified petition filed in support of this application it is stated that while computing the Court-fee payable on appeal it was wrongly calculated basing on the total amount of maintenance as well as the admitted amount and paid a sum of Rs. 681. In fact the amount of one year's maintenance should have been taken as the basis for calculation as contemplated by law. If that is taken as the basis, the Court-fee should have to be paid on Rs. 3,600 (i.e., 150 X 12) and on arrears Court-fee of Rs. 306 would be the correct one. Thus an amount of Rs. 375 was paid in excess of the Court-fee required under section 22 of the Court-fees Act and the appellant is entitled to a refund of the same. The payment of the excess Court-fee was based on the wrong calculation. The parties have since compromised the matter. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Gourt may be pleased to refund to the appellant's counsel excess Court-fee of Rs. 375 paid.

(2.) This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance filed by the wife and son against the husband and father, respectively. The wife claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem and the son claimed Rs. 50. Hence the total claim in the aggregate was Rs. 150 per month. The suit was valued for purposes of Court fee at one year's maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 which came to Rs. 1,800. As there was also the claim for three years' maintenance at that rate prior to that suit, a total of 3 years' maintenance came to Rs. 5,400 (3 x 1,800) Thus the total value of the suit came to Rs. 7,200 and a Court fee of Rs. 612 was paid in the lower Court.

(3.) The lower Court by its decree dated 4th September, 1974, granted past maintenance of Rs. 5,400 as prayed for the past 3 years and also directed future maintenance to be paid at the rate claimed by the plaintiffs, viz., Rs. 100 for the wife and Rs. 50 for the son since the date of the suit. The defendant, appellant herein was also directed to pay costs of the suits.