( 1 ) THIS petition under S. 115 CPC is by the defendant in OS. 196 71 on the file of the Civil Judge at Bidar. By this petition an order made on Issue no. 1. determining the valuation of the subject matter of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction, has been challenged. It has arisen in this way. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff sued for recovery of past and future maintenance "at the rate of Rs. 200 per mensem. In regard to the past maintenance she quantified the total amount payable at Rs. 7,200 and then added Rs. 2,400 to it for the purpose of court fee under S. 22 Off the Karnateka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Thus, the value of the relief for purpose of court fee is Rs. 9,600 only. The suit however, came to be filed in the Court of the civil Judge which has jurisdiction in cases of suits where the subject matter is not less than Rs. 10,000. But what the plaintiff did for the purpose of jurisdiction is, apparently placing reliance on sub-clause (c) of S. 22 of the aforesaid Act that she quantified five years maintenance for the purpose of jurisdiction and thus arrived at a figure of Rs. 12,000. ( 3 ) ON an objection being taken by the defendant an additional issue came to be framed. The Court without properly comprehending the scope of the provisions of the various sub-clauses of S. 22 read with sub-sec, (1) of S. 50, accepted the valuation of the plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction. Hence this petition. ( 4 ) IT is clear from the provisions of S. 22 of the Court Fees Act, which occurs in Chap. IV of that Act, and is exclusively applicable to court fee payable on the subject matter of suits, that it has no, reference to the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction, in regard to which provision has been made under S. 50 of the Act. S. 22 (a) specifically provides for payment of court fee in regard to future maintenance and says that in a suit for maintenance court fee has to be paid on the amount claimed to be payable for one year. In the instant case, such an amount would come to Rs. 2,400 only. S. 22 (a) specifically provides for payment of court fee in regard to future maintenance and says that in a suit for maintenance court fee has to be paid on the amount claimed to be payable for one year. In the instant case, such an amount would come to Rs. 2,400 only. Since the plaintiff has claimed past maintenance for a period of three years the total of such amount would be Rs. 7,200 only. Taking these amounts together, court fee is payable on a sum pf Rs. 9,600 only. ( 5 ) THE Court below was in error in placing reliance on sub-clause (c) of S. 22 which provides that in a suit for annuities or other sums payable periodically, court fee is payable on five times the amount claimed to be payable for one year. Reading S. 22 as a whole, it is clear that what is provided for under clause (a) of that section is excluded from the scope and purview of clause (c) of that section. In other words, a suit of the present nature for maintenance does not fall within the ambit of clause (c) of S. 22. ( 6 ) TURNING now to S. 50 of the Court Fees Act, that provision clearly provides for valuation of suits for purpose of jurisdiction. Sub-sec. (1) of s. 50 provides that in a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same. It is therefore clear from this provision that it was the clear duty of the plaintiff tp have valued the present suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at the same ampunt as the subject matter of value for the purpose pf cpurt fee. It follows, therefore that the valuation that should have been put on the present suit for the purpose of jurisdiction ought to be Rs. 9,600 only. Once this conclusion is reached, it follows that the Court of the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The order impugned herein, therefore is clearly unsustainable and has to be set aside. ( 7 ) FOR the abpve reasons, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. 9,600 only. Once this conclusion is reached, it follows that the Court of the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The order impugned herein, therefore is clearly unsustainable and has to be set aside. ( 7 ) FOR the abpve reasons, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order impugned herein is therefore set aside. The matter, however, will stand remitted to the Court below with a direction that it should return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff is granted one week's lime to take a return of the plaint from the court of the Civil Judge, after receipt of a copy of this order by that court. No costs. --- *** --- .