C/FA/2394/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2394 of 2024 ========================================================== KINJAL MITHILESH UPADYAY & ANR. Versus MITHILESH UMAKANT UPADHYAY ========================================================== Appearance: MR JAIMIN D PANDYA(10040) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MS NIDHI PANDYA(13931) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 11/08/2026 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI) Rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11(b) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of deficit court fees vide order dated 04/04/2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Jamnagar in Family Suit No.108 of 2022 is sought to be assailed in this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant – original plaintiff, it appears that the appellant – wife filed a Family Suit under Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Court act read with Section 27 of the of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking to recover the Streedhan as per the list of articles mentioned in the suit which includes, movable and immovable articles such as clothes, gold and silver articles, cash, as well as share as per the Hindu Succession Act in the immovable property i.e. open plot, C/FA/2394/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026 situated at Barot Fali, At Anand Baba Chakla. In the said suit, the learned Family Court vide order dated 12/03/2024 has directed the appellant – plaintiff to declare the total amount for the purpose of court fee and the suit valuation and to affix the requisite court fee on the total amount of articles and amount described in the plaint and the value of the open plot as described in the suit. It is further directed that in absence of any such declaration and non-payment of requisite court fee, the plaint will be rejected as per O.VI R.11(c) of the CPC. 3. It appears from the record that after passing of the aforesaid order, the advocate representing the appellant – plaintiff sought for an adjournment for calculation of amount of court fees and thereafter instead of doing so, had supplied the written argument in regards to the earlier order passed stating that instead of taking hyper technical view for payment of court fees, the learned Family Court should take liberal view in the matter seeking maintenance since the appellant – plaintiff had already affixed the court fee of Rs.40/- and there is deficit court fee of Rs.60/-. The learned Family Court considering the fact that relief prayed for in the nature of asking share in the open plot does not come within the purview of Streedhan and therefore the appellant is bound to follow the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure by affixing requisite court fees rejected the family suit on the ground of affixing requisite court fees. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant – plaintiff on the directions issued by the learned Family Court in regards to the payment of ad- valorem court fee on movable including the streedhan, cash, etc., as well as immovable property as described in the memo of petition has submitted that at the most nominal court fee stamp can be affixed and in support of his submissions has relied upon following case law. Page 2 of 4 C/FA/2394/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026 1. Smt. Devika Joshi w/o Deepak Joshi vs. Shri Deepak Joshi s/o Manohar Lal Joshi FAM No. 61 of 2016 (High Court Of Chhattisgarh). 2. Sucheta Garg and others vs. Vineet Garg and others 2023 PHHC 137022. 3. Lt. Col Satish Chaudhary vs. Kumari Sneh lata 2014 PHHC 067431. 4. Balwinder Singh vs. Sinderpal Kaul and another FAO No. 2787 of 2017 ( Punjab and Haryana High Court). 5. Saleesh Babu vs. Deepa (1996) 01 KL CK 0031. 6. Master Aditya Vikram Kansagra & anr vs. Mr Perrt Kansagara 2023 DHC 7470 DB 5. However, after arguing the matter at length, learned Advocate for the appellant – plaintiff has fairly submitted the fact that since the question pertaining to the directions issued for paying ad-valorem court fee stamp on the claim of maintenance as well as movable property are concerned, the nominal court fee stamp is required which was already affixed by the appellant – plaintiff in view of the law and proposition laid down in aforesaid cases, so also is the very purpose and object behind enecting Special Courts as enshrined under the Family Courts Act against ordinary Civil Court trying suit as fall under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court finds consideration in the submission qua the aforesaid issue. 6. However, the core question arises for consideration is as to whether the ad-valorem court fee stamp is paid on the immovable property and the relief sought for therein is concerned, learned Advocate for the appellant has conceded that appellant – plaintiff is ready and willing to pay and affix the necessary ad-valorem court fee stamp as per the prevailing rules C/FA/2394/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026 and the provisions of the Gujarat Court-Fees Act, 2004. 7. In light of aforesaid submissions, without much delving into any other aspect and considering the fairness shown by learned Advocate for the appellant – plaintiff and in view of the proposition of law decided in the aforesaid cases wherein the sum and substance is that the proceedings initiated by either spouse before the Family Court claiming their respective right, particularly, maintenance, streedhan or movables, etc., only nominal court fee stamp is required to be affixed; however in respect of immovable property is concerned, the ad-valorem court fee stamp as per the prevailing law is required to be paid and affixed. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal deserves consideration and it is accordingly partly allowed while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order as observed herein above. 9. However, the appellant – plaintiff shall pay and affix the necessary ad-valorem court fee stamp as per the provisions of the Gujarat Court- Fees Act, 2004 in respect of the relief pertaining to the immovable property. Such exercise shall be done within a period of ten days from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order. Needless to say that the Family Suit No.108 of 2022 shall be restored to its original file only after receipt of payment of ad-valorem court fee stamp in accordance with the law. (ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA SOMPURA(HC00189), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/08/2026 11:13:53