ORDER Navkar, J. 1. This is an appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the decree passed by the Fourth additional District Judge, Gwalior in Case No. C.S. 106-A of 1976, dated 27-1-1977. 2. The facts of the case are that Manorama Sharma filed an application under section 12 of the Act with the allegations that she is married to Suresh Kumar on 15-5-1973 according to Hindu rite at Topi Bazar, Lashkar On 16-5-1973, she went to the house of Suresh Kumar and stayed there for four days but no cohabitation took place. Neither the husband tried to cohabit with the wife. After four days, she came back to the horse of her father and again she went to the house of her husband while she was staying with her husband, he did not cohabit with her. In spite of the wife’s trying he did not cohabit with her, the husband was not in a position to cohabit. After trying so may times the wife-appellant came to the conclusion that her husband is impotent and is not in a position to fulfil the marital obligations. When he was asked as to why he married her when be was an impotent, be said to her that his mother wanted dowry and, therefore, he had married her. Knowing this, she left the house of the husband and went to her parents. The father of the appellant as well as her brother asked the respondent to undergo medical examination, but he refuced to do it. On these allegations the appellant filed an application that because the husband is impotent and till the date of filing the application, as the marriage hat not been consummated therefore, it should be declared to be null and void. 3. In the petition, it is also alleged that at the time of marriage, present and other things worth Rs.19,274/- were given to the husband and to her the list of which is filed along with the application. As she has filed an application that the marriage should be declared null and void, she is entitled to get back this amount in kind or in cash, if the application is allowed. A notice was given to the husband on 16-9-1974 which was received by him on 18- 9-1974. As she has filed an application that the marriage should be declared null and void, she is entitled to get back this amount in kind or in cash, if the application is allowed. A notice was given to the husband on 16-9-1974 which was received by him on 18- 9-1974. The articles were not returned by the non-applicant and wrong reply was sent by him. These allegations are also mentioned in the application filed on 28-10-1974 These allegations was refuted by the husband in his reply and he submitted that he is quite competent to perform the marital obligations, but the wife left his house and as she wants to stay away from him she has filed this application. He also submitted that at the time of the marriage presents, articles worth Rs.12,000/- were given to the wife and he is entitled to get them back in case, the marriage is declared to be null and void. The following issues were framed in this case: 1. Was the respondent impotent at the time of his marriage with the petitioner and continues to be so till the presentation of the petition? 2. Is the petitioner entitled to the return or the property, presented at the lime of her marriage, worth Rs.19,274 ? 3. Had the respondent given clothes and ornaments worth Rs.12,000/- to the petitioner ? 4. To which relief is the petitioner entitled ? and after evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent being impotent and not in a position to fulfil the marital obligations, granted the decree that the marriage is null and void. But as to the demand by the wife for the alleged amount of Rs.19,274/- and also for the amount which was demanded by the husband, the learned trial Judge said that as no Court-fee is paid this matter cannot be investigated Against this Judgment and decree, this appeal is filed by the wife and cross-objections are filed by the husband. 5. In the appeal flied by the wife it is submitted that the order of the trial Court that unless the Court-fee is paid the allegations regarding return of the amount of Rs.19,274/- cannot be investigated, is not correct and no Court-fee is necessary for investigating the said claim As to the cross-objections. 5. In the appeal flied by the wife it is submitted that the order of the trial Court that unless the Court-fee is paid the allegations regarding return of the amount of Rs.19,274/- cannot be investigated, is not correct and no Court-fee is necessary for investigating the said claim As to the cross-objections. Shri K.S. Shrivastava learned counsel for the respondent, submitted before me that he is not contesting the finding given by the trial Court that the husband is incompetent to fulfil the marital obligations. He only submitted that for investigation of the amount he has claimed, no Court-fee is necessary. 6. I have gone through the evidence produced by the plaintiff and her statement and from her statement and the evidence she has produced, I have no doubt in my mind that the finding of the trial Court that the husband is impotent and is not in a position to fulfil the marital obligation is correct and I confirm the same, The medical evidence of plaintiff's witness No.2 Dr. M/s. Katare clearly shows that the plaintiff is virgin when she was examined by her, and she is capable of fulfilling the marital obligations as a wife. Taking into consideration the statement of the wife along with this evidence, I think the only correct finding would be that the husband is impotent and not in a position to fulfil the marital obligations. 7. Now coming to the quest ion of Court-fees, I think, no Court-fee is required on a claim which is put by the husband and the wife in their application. In the Court fees Act there is no provision as to what Court- fees should be paid on such claims. The Court-fees Act is a fiscal enactment. It is always to be construed very strictly and in favour of the subject bearing in mind always that the object of the Act is not to arm a litigant with a weapon to harass hill opponent. I rely on Paikan Singh v Manik Singh [AIR 1949 Nag 97] for this. So also, the construction should be a far as possible in favour of the subject. Therefore, if there is no provision for paying the Court-fees on a claim, it should be held that the claim should be investigated without payment of such court-fees. I rely on Paikan Singh v Manik Singh [AIR 1949 Nag 97] for this. So also, the construction should be a far as possible in favour of the subject. Therefore, if there is no provision for paying the Court-fees on a claim, it should be held that the claim should be investigated without payment of such court-fees. As I have already said that the Court-fees Act makes no provision for payment of Court-fees on such a claim therefore there is no need of paying any Court-fees on the claims put forward in the present proceedings. 8. An indication is also given by stet ion 27 of the Act as to what orders can be paned by the Court when passing a decree. The section is as under "In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife." From this section, it is clear that the Court has to make such provisions in the decree itself and that decree will be passed when the Court is disposing of the application filed under the Act For filing such an application a fixed Court-fee of Rs.20/- is to be paid. When such Court-fees is provided for filing an application under the Act, then in my opinion, if certain provisions are to be made by the Court while deciding the application itself, no additional Court-fees is necessary for making such provision in the decree Therefore the order of the trial Court that because: the Court-fees is not paid, it will not investigate the claim of the husband and the wife for the return of the value of the presents cannot be maintained and I will have to set it aside. I hold that for investigating such claim, no additional Court-fees is necessary. 9. The result therefore is that the claim of the wife and the husband will have to be investigated by the trial Court and, therefore, the case will have to be sent back for investigating the money claims of the parties to the District Court. The decree of the trial Court that the marriage is null and void is confirmed. 10. The result therefore is that the claim of the wife and the husband will have to be investigated by the trial Court and, therefore, the case will have to be sent back for investigating the money claims of the parties to the District Court. The decree of the trial Court that the marriage is null and void is confirmed. 10. The result is that the appeal filed by the wife and the cross-objections file by the husband are allowed to the extent that their claims will be investigated by the trial Court without asking them to pay any additional Court-fees. The rest of the cross-objections filed by the husband are dismissed as not pressed. As both the parties are successful in their appeal and cross-objections, I feel, no order should be passed regarding the costs. The parties will therefore bear their own costs. The file will now go to the District Judge Gwalior for disposal of the case in the light of the observations contained above.