IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (122)

Date of Decision:-12.11.2025 PARDEEP SINGH … Petitioner Versus SURJIT KAUR @ HARMANDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER ... Respondents -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 02.08.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barnala, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been rejected.

2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for maintenance claiming maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- per month for each of the plaintiffs and the Court fee which was paid has not been specified in the plaint, whereas, the copy of the plaint shows that the Court fee stamps of Rs.50/- has been affixed by the respondents/plaintiffs. Petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking direction from the Court to respondents/plaintiffs to fix the ad voleram Court fee as per Section 7 of Court Fee Act or to reject the plaint. That application was declined vide impugned order (Annexure P4).

3. Learned counsel contended that the order is bad in view of the “7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:-

For money. - (i) In suits for money (including damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, annuities, or other sums payable periodically), according to the amount claimed;

for maintenance and annuities. -(ii) 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

4. So, the impugned order be set aside as the learned Principal Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in the Court.

5. I have gone through the impugned order carefully. Relevant portion of the impugned order is as under:-

“Perusal of file reveals that present case has been filed by plaintiff No.1 being the wife and plaintiff No.2 being son of defendant for maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month for each of plaintiff and for the same to be created as charge over the property (a house-cum- shop measuring 1 Kanal) and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the property. The amount of maintenance is yet to be quantified by the court and for the same to be so quantified, evidence shall be required to be taken. Accordingly, at this stage, ad-valorem court fee is not liable to be affixed on the amount of maintenance claimed by the plaintiffs. The court fee payable would be quantified only after the determination of the amount of maintenance payable. Accordingly, this Court finds no merits in the present application and same is hereby dismissed.”

6. This clearly shows that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barnala has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in the Court as the Court fee is not to be ascertained after determination of amount payable rather as per the required to be affixed and suit has to be valued for the purpose of Court fee on the amount claimed i.e. the value of the suit should be 10 times the amount claimed to be payable for one year which has not been done in the present case. The copy of the plaint (Annexure P1) clearly shows that there is no valuation made by the respondents/plaintiffs and there is no averment as to the affixation of the Court fee in the plaint, so, plaint is defective on this count as per the provisions of Order VII Rule 1 of CPC.

7. In the light of above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Respondents/plaintiffs are to amend the plaint and to value their suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and to pay appropriate