AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 396 wordsP.R. Sharma, J.—This appeal raises a question about the court-fee payable on a petition filed u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act No. XXV of 1955.
The learned Add. District Judge, Rajgarh by his order dated 2-3-1960 held as follows:
The prayer is for declaration of status, the judgment in the suit, provided without fraud or collusion or a forgery, I(sic) should be a judgment in rem. In such an important suit the court-fee to be paid is not equivalent to the court-fee paid on a simple petition.
The learned Judge, therefore, held that the Court-fee of Re. 1, paid on the petition was palpably low and gave the Petitioner 15 days time to make good the deficiency. The Petitioner having not complied with this order, the learned Judge dismissed the petition by his order dated 11-4-1960.
It is indeed a matter of regret that the learned Addl. District Judge did not base his decision on any provision in the Madhya Pradesh Court-Fees Act. It is not the importance of an action or the effect of the judgment passed therein which can be the criteria for determining the court-fees chargeable in an action. The liability to pay court-fees can be fastened on a Petitioner or suitor only on the basis of an specific statutory provision. The Court-fee on an application u/s 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the dissolution of marriage is not otherwise provided for by the Court-Fees Act. There is also no scope for importing the words ''plaint'' and ''suit'' in S. 13 in which only the word "application" is used.
A petition under the Hindu Marriage Act must, therefore, be regarded as a petition of the nature described in Schedule 2 Article 1 (b) paragraph 6 of the M. P. Court-Fees Act. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Karbhari Vithoba Vs. Anusuya Karbhari, ; and the Patna High Court in Srikant Chand Vs. Mt. Ram Mohini, .
This appeal is, therefore, allowed. It is held the the court-fee on Re. 1 paid on the petition is proper. The case is remanded to the Court of first instance for being tried and disposed of in accordance with law. Since the mistake had its origin entirely in the mind of the Court, no costs are awarded.
Khan, J.
I agree