' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA , J.--- Vide judgment and decree dated 25-2-1997, learned Judge Family Court, Peshawar granted a decree for maintenance at the rate of rupees one thousand per month in favour of Mst. Nusrat Begum and against her husband Abdul Jalil. The amount of decree included past maintenance as well.
2. The husband went in appeal where learned Additional District Judge Peshawar directed him to affix court-fees under section 7(2) of the Court Fees Act within a period fixed by the appellate Court. Such court-fee was not affixed in the given period and hence the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 8-10-1998 and hence this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
3. It is a settled law in the N.-W.F.P. That a court-fee of rupee one is affixed on the plaint before a Family Court under section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964. The section specifically mentions the word "plaint" which, therefore, would be deemed to have excluded the memorandum of appeal. Such memorandum shall, therefore, be liable to be affixed ad valorem court-fee on the subject-matter of dispute, as provided by section 7 of Court Fees Act.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court given in Mirza Daud Baig v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala 1987 SCM R 1161. All the principles governing the affixation of court-fees on plaint before a Civil Court and on plaint before a Family Court and also on memorandum of appeal before the first appellate Court are elaborately discussed in the light of section 7 of the Court Fees Act and all relevant sections of the Family Courts Act, 1964. It is observed that on memorandum of appeal the mode of valuation for the purpose of court-fee would be ten times the value of maintenance granted for a period of one year. In the instant case, such valuation for the purposes of court-fee amounted to Rs,120,000. The petitioner was given time by the First Appellate Court to affix the court-fee, which was not so affixed and hence the appeal was rightly dismissed. The petitioner had availed assistance of a counsel who could have calculated the same in the light of section 7 of the Court Fees Act. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.