MATHUR,J. - (1.) WE have heard Mr. M. Section Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I. Section Pareek, learned Additional Government Advocate, party necessary for adjudication in the matter of payment of court -fees.
(2.) THE instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated 10th July, 2003 rejecting the application for maintenance of wife and children by a peremptory order, in case of default of payment of deficit court -fees of Rs. 15.045/ - calculated on ad valorem basis. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the wife of respondent Hari Kishan viz., Smt. Mamta, daughters Ms. Saroj, Ms. Pooja and Ms. Arti filed an application under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 in the Family Court, Jodhpur claiming maintenance in the sum, of Rs. 25,000/ - per months. It is averred that the marriage between the first appellant Smt. Mamta and respondent Hari Kishan took place in the year 1976. Out of the said wedlock, she gave birth to other three applicants viz. Ms. Saroj aged 25 years, Ms. Pooja aged 18 years and Ms. Arti aged 15 years. The respondent Hari Kishan deserted them in September, 1998 and refused to maintain them. It is also averred that the respondent is serving in the Accounts Section of the Municipal Corporation drawing a salary of Rs. 17,000/ - per month. He is also a goldsmith, as such, he is having an additional income of Rs. 20,000/ - per month. Thus, his total monthly income is Rs. 37,000/ -. The respondent prayed for rejection of the application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC for non -payment of court -fees of Rs. 15,065/ - payable on valuation of the petition i.e. Rs. 3 lacs. On the material controversy, a. preliminary issue was framed to the effect as to whether the application filed by the wife is liable to be dismissed for non -payment of the court -fees. The Judge, Family Court, decided the issue against the appellant. By the impugned order, a direction has been given to first appellant Smt. Mamta to pay the court -fee of Rs. 15,045/ - by 8 -8 -2003 failing which the application for maintenance shall stand rejected.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel that the proceedings under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 in the Family Court are of summary nature and, as such, it cannot be termed as 'Suit'. Consequently, the provision of Section 22 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act is not attracted and on such application ad valorem court -fees is not payable on the amount claimed, payable for one year. Learned counsel has also given the outline of the object and purpose of a Family Court.;