RAMA KUMARI MEHER Vs. MEENAKETAN MEHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Kumari (appellant) is the married wife of Menaketan Meher (respondent). She filed O. S. No. 58 of 1970 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Aska, for a decree of divorce under Section 13 or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The suit having been dismissed she has filed the appeal. On the memorandum of appeal Court-tee of Rs. 6/- has been affixed, The Stamp Reporter is of the opinion that Court-fee of Rs. 22/8/- is payable. He relied on an unreported decision of G. C. Das J., the then Taxing Judge, in First Appeal No. 43 of 1963, decided on 14-12-1961 (Orissa) (Sripada Samba Siva Rao v. Sripada Subhalaxmi). He referred the matter to the Taxing officer (Registrar). The Taxing officer noticed apparent conflict in the aforesaid decision and another decision of Barman J. in 33 Cut LT 13 = (AIR 1967 Orissa 41) (Mst. Puinbasi Majhiani v. Shiba Bhue). He referred the Matter to the Taxing Judge for an authoritative pronouncement. The Taxing Judge S. K. Ray J. has referred the matter to the Division Bench. This is how the case has come before us.

(2.) Mr. S. C. Mohapatra for the appellant contends that Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act, 1870, as amended in Orissa, applies to this case while Mr. R. K. Mohapatra, the learned Government Advocate, contends that Article 17A applies. To appreciate the rival contentions Articles 11 and 17A, so far as relevant, may be extracted: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_13_TLORI0_1975Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The only question, for consideration is as to which, of these Articles would apply to this case. Article 17A is a residuary Article and can be invoked only if Article 11 is not applicable. We would accordingly proceed to analyse if Article 11 applies.