The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court fee payable on proceedings before the Family Court, initiated by way of a petition, could only be the fee prescribed for an application, in line with the object of the Family Courts Act.

Balasubramanyan, J.

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 imated 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 Article 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 Ss.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 Article 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.

4.It is true that in the present case, the proceeding was originally initiated in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Irinjalakuda and was subsequently transferred to the Family Court. According to us, this fact may not make any difference on the question to be decided or the principle to be settled by us on this reference.

5. S.23 of the Family Courts Act provides for the making of Rules by the State Government after consultation with the High Court for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The Family Courts (Kerala) Rules 1989 were framed in exercise of that power. R.3 of the said Rules provides that all proceedings instituted before the Family Court shall be by way of a petition, but making an exception in regard to proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the present purpose what is to be noticed is that, all proceedings instituted before the Family Court are by way of a petition. In such a situation, when a wife makes a claim for recovery of the value of the ornaments from her husband, going by R.3 of the Rules, that proceeding has to be initialed by way of a petition. That the proceeding is to be initiated by way of a petition is re-emphasised by R.4 and the other Rules. The question then is what is the effect of the adjudication on such a petition. S.17 of the Family Courts Act only provides for what a judgment should contain and S.18 of the Act provides that an adjudication by the Family Court shall have the same force and effect as a decree or order of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner. S.2(e) of the Family Courts Act provides that the words and expressions used in the Act but not defined in the Act, shall have the meaning assigned to them by the Code of Civil Procedure. The word 'order' has been defined by