KINJAL MITHILESH UPADYAYversusMITHILESH UMAKANT UPADHYAY

     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,

                                  Page 1 of 4
     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

                                  Page 3 of 4
          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



                                                      Page 4 of 4