The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the classification of actions as suits or petitions under the relevant legal framework.

1. To challenge the order dated 29.06.2017 delivered in Civil. Misc.73 of 2015 by the Judge, Family court, Agartala the petitioner who raised the objection in the trial court that the suit was not properly valued and stamped as per the Court Fees Act, 1870 has contended that in a suit for maintenance and annuities as the court fees has to be paid ad valorem under Section 7(ii) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 specifically provides as under:

“In suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically—according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year.”

2. The respondent, in this petition, instituted the suit under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to realize the maintenance allowance from the petitioner who is her father.

3. By filing the written objection on 02.05.2017, the petitioner herein (the Opposite Party in that proceeding) has categorically taken stand in the trial court that the suit was not properly valued and stamped as per the Court Fees Act, 1870. The petitioner herein filed an application on 29.06.2017 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for amendment of his written objection to highlight the said objection in respect of payment of the Court Fees Act and to hold that the suit is not maintainable for non-payment of due court fees as per the Court Fees Act, 1870. The said application for amendment of the written objection has been rejected and the trial court recorded the evidence led by the respondent and fixed the date on 07.09.2017 for recording the evidence for the opposite party, the respondent herein. Again the petitioner filed a petition on 07.09.2017 to recall the order dated 29.06.2017 and allow the petitioner to amend his objection and the said petition was fixed for hearing on 05.12.2017 and finally, by the order dated 07.09.2017, the trial court, according to the petitioner has curtailed the right of the petitioner from adducing the evidence. According to the petitioner, the said order dated 07.09.2017 is grossly illegal and irregular and as such, the petitioner has evoked the superintending jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking interference in the order dated 07.09.2017 and also for recalling the order dated 29.06.2017 whereby the trial court had rejected the prayer for amendment for purpose of incorporating the said jurisprudential objection. The petitioner has further prayed in this revisional petition [under Article 227 of the Constitution of India] to allow him to amend the written objection filed on 02.05.2017 in terms of the schedule of his petition dated 29.06.2017 for amendment.

4. Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has focused his submission solely on the question of non-payment of the court fees act in terms of Section 7 under Chapter-III of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further submitted that the Civil Misc.73 of 2015 cannot be treated as the petition, on the contrary it should be treated as the suit instituted under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The respondent herein, the petitioner in the proceeding, stamped the petition by the Court Fees of Rs.1 without paying the proper court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1872. Since the petitioner did not take a categorical stand in this regard in the written objection he had filed the said amendment application but by means of an unsolicited “interpretation” of the judgment and order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the Gauhati High Court in CRP No.18 of 2017, the trial court has rejected the petitioner’s petition for amendment of his written objection. As stated, the said petition for amendment has been rejected and the proceeding continued and the date was fixed for examination of the witnesses by the opposite party [the petitioner herein]. By the orde