Bannurmath, J.

1. Registry has raised the objection regarding deficit court fee to be paid.

2. Both these appeals arise from the common judgment passed by the Family Court in the petitions filed under Section 9 and 13(i) (i-a)(i-b) and (1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the wife and husband respectively. The appellant in each of these cases has paid a court fee of Rs.15/-as per Schedule-II Article 1 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the `KCFSV Act). But, as per the office objection, court fee is payable as per Schedule-II Article 1 of the KCFSV Act since, the appeal against the order passed under Section 9 or 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is provided under Section 28 of the said Act. As such, the office states that the appellant is liable to pay the court fee of Rs.100/- each as per Schedule-II Article 1 of the KCFSV Act.

3. In this regard, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, the appeals are not field under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act but under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act No.66 of 1984 and as such, as there is no provision under Schedule-II Article 1 regarding the court fee to be paid in respect of the matters under the Family Court Act, the payment of court fee of Rs.15/- as per Schedule-II Article 3(iii) is just and correct.

4. On perusal of the said provisions, it is to be noted that though the Hindu Marriage Act is of the year 1955, the Family Courts Act has come into force in the year 1984 and after establishment of the Family Courts, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act an appeal has been provided against the orders or judgments passed by a Family Court. This is a special statute and as such, prevails over general law especially in the light of non-obstinate clause. It is well settled law that in the event of conflict between a special law and a general law, the special law must always prevail. In case of conflict between a special law and a general law, even if both enacted by the same legislative authority, the special law must displace the general law to the extent of inconsistency. The operation of the maxim generalia speciali bus non derogant has been approved and applied by the Honble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In the absence of corresponding provision in the KCFSV Act regarding appeals arising from the orders of the Family Court unlike Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act and especially in view of the non obstinate clause under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, we find that the office objection cannot be upheld. As such, as the present appeals also being not filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act but under the special provision viz., Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the court fee paid by valuing under Schedule-II Article 3(iii) of the KCFSV Act is just and proper.

Accordingly, office objection stands over ruled.