SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, VIKAS MAHAJAN
Master Aditya Vikram Kansagra – Appellant
Versus
Perry Kansagara – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Mansi Sharma, Ms. Shreya Singhal and Ms. Astha Baderiya Advocates
For the Respondents: Ex-Parte

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.—Appellant impugns order dated 22.02.2020 whereby in respect of a petition filed by the Appellants, under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Family Court directed the appellants to segregate the amount of maintenance claimed by each of them and directed Appellant No. 2 to pay ad-valorem court fee on the amount claimed by her.

2. Appellant No. 1 is the son of the Respondent and the Appellant No. 2 is the wife of the Respondent and mother of Appellant No. 1. Appellants filed the subject proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act claiming maintenance from the Respondent.

3. The Family Court has held that as the Appellants have filed a Suit under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, ad-valorem Court Fee is payable in terms of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Appellants contends that the proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act are proceeding

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top