Court fees to be paid in case of suit filed for declaration relating to Domestic violence Act
Therefore merely because the issue of exclusive ownership has been
framed that would not bring the suit within the sweep of Section 6(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act. No doubt the provisions of Domestic Violence Act have
created a right in favour of a wife or a person having live-in-relationship to lay a claim for living in the shared household, but the said right would not
impinge upon the ownership right of a person who is the owner of the property, and merely because the order is passed directing the wife to live in the shared household, it would not mean that the suit in question which has been filed for injunction is converted to a suit for declaration of ownership. If this allowed to be done, it would lead to an anomalous position where a
persons' title to the property cannot be questioned, but merely because a person lays a claim that the said property is a shared household, the person
who has filed the suit in question for injunction would have to pay court fees
on the basis that he is seeking declaration of ownership, when in fact he is the owner. Though the Plaintiffs have not challenged the earlier order dated
23/7/2012, the same cannot come in their way, as by the earlier order, the issue of exclusive ownership of the Plaintiffs is framed, the Plaintiffs obviously
do not have any objection to the said issue, but have objection to the payment of court fees on the said basis.
9 In my view, therefore, the impugned order in so far as it holds that the suit is covered by the provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court
Fees Act and on the said basis directs the Plaintiffs to make proper valuation
and pay property court fees is unsustainable and is required to be quashed and set aside, and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Bombay High Court
Ou vs Neeraj Lalchand Kalro And Ors. : on 13 February, 2013
Bench: R. M. Savant
