The main legal point established in the judgment is that proceedings for maintenance before the Family Court are petition in nature and not suit, and ad valorem court fee is not liable to be paid.

GURBIR SINGH, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.11.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay ad valorem court fee in a petition filed by them for maintenance under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984; and order dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), whereby their application seeking recall of order dated 04.11.2019 has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance and for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs have charge and creating charge over the properties as mentioned in the head note of the plaint; and further for declaration to the effect that one transfer deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and two transfer deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 with regard to immovable property as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, are illegal and null and void; suit for declaration to the effect that the property measuring 495.56 square yards with specific boundaries where M/s Nitisha International is doing its business, has been purchased by defendant No.1 in the name of defendant No.3 out of the funds of Shivam Auto Forge, proprietorship concern of defendant No.1, as such petitioners-plaintiffs have charge over said property also; and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents etc. from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the property No.165-D, Phase-1, Urban Estate, Focal Point, Ludhiana, as shown in red colour in the site plan; and also restraining them from alienating, transferring possession, creating any other charge or dealing with the property as mentioned in the head note of the plaint.

3. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, passed the order on 04.11.2019 (Annexure P-2), the extract of which is as under:-

“.......... The report of reader is perused and it is found that the suit of the plaintiffs is not valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as per relief of recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- for the plaintiffs sought by the plaintiffs against defendants and resulting of which now to come up on 25.11.2019 for making the deficiency of court fee good by the plaintiffs as per view taken in Satnam Singh Vs. Mandeep Kaur and another, PLR Vol-CLXXXI-(2016-1) 733 (Civil Revision No.1866 of 2014) referred by counsel for the defendants to proceed as per law.”

4. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved an application (Annexure P-3) for recalling the order dated 04.11.2019 whereby the court has asked the plaintiffs for making the alleged deficiency of court fee good. Defendant No.1 filed reply to the said application whereas defendants No.2 and 3 filed separate reply. Vide order dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure P-4), said application was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs have filed the suit under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, suit for declaration that they have charge and creating over properties, suit for declaration that the transfer deeds are illegal and suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have not only claimed the relief of maintenance but have also claimed other reliefs which can be granted only in a suit. It is also held that the order dated 04.11.2019 neither suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record nor suffers from any illegality.

5. The short question involved in the present petition is whether the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fee or not on the suit pending before the Family Court.

6. The suit is filed before the learned Family Court. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of defendant