Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 193 (HP)

DINA NATH v. SOMA DEVI

2001-08-14

R.L.KHURANA

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—Heard. 2. The petitioner before this Court is the defendant. He is aggrieved by the order dated 1.1.2001 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sarkaghat whereby interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per month has been awarded in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 3. The parties are married to each other. The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per month from the defendant. While seeking the maintenance, it has been alleged that the defendant has contracted second marriage and has neglected to maintain the plaintiff. It has further been averred that the defendant is serving as Drawing Teacher and is getting Rs. 12,000 per month. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in receipt of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has also been averred that the plaintiff has to maintain her unmarried college going daughter and since there is no means of income it has become difficult for her to meet her expenses. In the said suit on an application having been made by the plaintiff, the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Sarkaghat has awarded interim maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per month vide impugned order dated 1.1.2001. 4. At the very outset, it may be stated that the impugned order dated 1.1.2001 granting interim maintenance in favour of the plaintiff-respondent cannot be sustained since the same has been passed by the learned trial Court below without jurisdiction. 5. Section 7(ii) of the H.P. Court-fees Act lays down that in a suit for maintenance or annuities or other sums payable periodically, a suit is to be valued 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. 6. As stated above, in the present case, the plaintiff has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per month. Calculated at that rate, therefore, the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has to be valued in terms of Section 7(ii) of the H.P Court Fees Act at Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 10, that is, Rs. 7,20,000. 7. 6,000 per month. Calculated at that rate, therefore, the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has to be valued in terms of Section 7(ii) of the H.P Court Fees Act at Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 10, that is, Rs. 7,20,000. 7. The plaintiff in para 9 of its plaint with regard to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction was averred as under:— "That the value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs. 195 upon which court-fee of Rs. 19.50 is fixed on the plaint and that of Rs. 1 on the Talwana as process-fee." 8. Prima facie, as per para-9 of the plaint, the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. 9. It is not disputed that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Sub Judge is only to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs. Since the value of the suit for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 7,20,000, the same on the face of it is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court below and as such the interim order is passed without jurisdiction. 10. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.1.2001 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sarkaghat District Mandi is set aside. 11. The amount deposited by the defendant with the learned trial Court in pursuance of the order dated 24.1.2001 of this Court, shall be refunded to him. Revision allowed.