MAMTA Vs. HARI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. M. Section Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I. Section Pareek, learned Additional Government Advocate, party necessary for adjudication in the matter of payment of court -fees.

(2.) THE instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated 10th July, 2003 rejecting the application for maintenance of wife and children by a peremptory order, in case of default of payment of deficit court -fees of Rs. 15.045/ - calculated on ad valorem basis.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 in the Family Court are of summary nature and, as such, it cannot be termed as 'Suit'. Consequently, the provision of Section 22 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act is not attracted and on such application ad valorem court -fees is not payable on the amount claimed, payable for one year. Learned counsel has also given the outline of the object and purpose of a Family Court.