* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 12^th October, 2023

+ MAT. APP. (F.C.) 115/2020

MASTER ADITYA VIKRAM KANSAGRA & ANR. ... Appellants

versus

MR. PERRY KANSAGARA

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant:

Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Mansi Sharma, Ms. Shreya

Singhal and Ms. Astha Baderiya Advocates.

For the Respondents: Ex-Parte

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1.

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.

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:12.10.2023

17:42:54

Signature Not Verified

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 theAppellants contends that the

proceedings under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and

Maintenance Act are proceedings and not a Civil Suit and as such

fixed court fee is payable as per the second Schedule.

5.

Respondent was served with the notice of the appeal and had

entered appearance and was represented through Counsel. On

20.05.2022, counsel for the Respondent stated that the Respondent

had withdrawn the power of attorney granted to them to represent him

and accordingly the vakalatnama of the Counsel was discharged and

default notice was directed to be sent to the Respondent. On

12.09.2022, despite service of notice, none appeared for the

Respondent and accordingly, respondent was proceeded ex-parte.

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:12.10.2023

17:42:54

Signature Not Verified

6.

The question that arises for consideration is as to whether ad

valorem court fee is payable on a claim for maintenance filed under

Section 18 and 20 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956?

7.

Maintenance can be broadly claimed by a Hindu wife under

three provisions. Firstly under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act, secondly under Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 and thirdly under Section 125 Criminal Procedure

Code., 1973 and a son under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act and under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code.

8.

The relevant provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and

Maintenance Act, 1956 read as under:

“18. Maintenance of wife.––(1) Subject to the provisions of

her husband without forfeiting her claims to maintenance,––

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:12.10.2023

17:42:54

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:12.10.2023

17:42:54

Signature Not Verified

under this Act, regard shall be had to:––

had to:––

Digitally Signed

By:RASHIM KAPOOR

Signing Date:12.10.2023

17:42:54

Signature Not Verified

such alteration.”

9.

A Hindu wife, children and aged parents, subject to certain

conditions, are entitled to be maintained by her husband, father or

child as the case may be under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu

Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The amount of maintenance is

assessed in terms of the conditions mentioned in Section 23 thereof

and may be altered on change of circumstances in terms of S