ABDUL QAYYUM Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

This petition arises. out of a suit for maintenance filed by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 against the petitioner which was decreed by the Family Court on 13th September, 1989, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance for the period of Iddat to respondent No.3, who was his wife, Rs.1,200, while to respondents Nos.4 and 5, who are his minor children, at the rate of Rs.450 per month and maintenance, with effect from August, 1986.

2. The petitioner went in appeal against the decree of the Family Court and partly succeeded inasmuch as the maintenance for the wife was reduced ‑from Rs.1,200 to Rs.600 and the rate qua respondents Nos.4 and 5 was also reduced to Rs.180 per month.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition is that according to section 19 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964, the plaint of the suit filed by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 should have been stamped with a court‑fee of Rs.15 but as no court‑fee had been affixed thereon, there was no plaint in the eyes of law before the Family Court and the suit filed by the respondents should not have been decreed.

4. To say the least, this contention of the learned counsel is highly misconceived. It has since long been settled that court‑fee is primarily a matter A between the Court and the litigant and no right acrues to the opposite party if the plaint is deficiently stamped. In ‑Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 it was ruled that if the plaint is not stamped or is deficiently stamped, it remains to be a valid plaint in the eyes of law and the Court can at the most direct the plaintiff to pay the proper court fee.

5. It is also to be noticed that no such objection was raised by the petitioner before any of the Courts below and it would be highly inequitable to allow the petitioner to raise such a hypo technical objection at this stage, mere to avoid payment of maintenance, especially when the amount of court‑fee is only Rs.15.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mirza Daud Baig v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and others 1987 SCMR 11.61 in support of the assertion that court‑fee of Rs.15 is to be affixed on the plaint before the Family Court as required by section 19 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964. This contention of the learned counsel is not well‑founded, in view of Punjab Court Fees (Abolition) Ordinance (X of 1983), according to which no court‑fee is payable in any case of civil nature where the value of the subject‑matter in a suit is less than Rs.25,000. It cannot be doubted that the proceedings before the Family Court are the `civil' proceedings.

For the reasons aforesaid, there is no force in this petition, which is dismissed in limine.

A.A./A‑103/L Petition dismissed,