Honble KESHOTE, J.–Heard learned counsel for the defendant petitioners, perused the revision petition and the order of the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Kota passed on 6.11.2001 in Civil Misc. Application No.95 of 2000. Under this order the application filed by the plaintiff respondent No.1 under Order 33 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as the Code) was came to be allowed and she is permitted to file the suit as an indigent person.

(2). It is to be noticed that the defendant petitioners have not given out the detailed facts of the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent No.1.

(3). The plaintiff respondent No.1 undisputed is the wife of the defendant petitioner No.1.

(4). The defendant petitioners no.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the plaintiff respondent No.1.

(5). The defendant petitioners no.4 and 5 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the plaintiff respondent No.1.

(6). From the impugned order, it appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the plaintiff respondent no.1 and the defendant petitioner no.1. The Family Court, Kota, as it transpires from the order of the learned trial Court, has ordered for payment of the maintenance of Rs.450/- (four hundred fifty) per month by the defendant petitioner no.1 to the plaintiff respondent no.1. Though very specifically it is not pleaded, but this order of Family court is either under Sec.24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 or u/Sec.125 Cr.P.C., 1973.

(7). The suit out of which this revision arises, has been filed for recovery of Rs.one lac sixty four thousand and five hundred by plaintiff respondent no.1 against the defendant petitioners. As the value of her total assets is less than Rs.five hundred, she filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code for grant of permission to her to file the suit as an indigent person. The suit, as it comes out from the impugned order of the court below, would have been filed in the beginning of 2000. As per the valuation of the suit the plaintiff respondent No.1 has to pay the court fees of Rs.8500/- (eight thousand five hundred).

(8). The Constitution of India postulates a Society in which socio-economic and legal justice is available to all, on the basis that they are equal. To enforce the constitutional mandate of equity before the law, the State has to ensure access to justice. That is to say that the opportunity for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disability. The reference here may have to the Article 39A of the Constitution. This Article in the Constitution of India was inserted by the Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 with effect from 3.1.1977. It reads as under:-

``39A. Equal justice and free legal aid. - The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

(9). The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter shall be referred to as `the Act of 1987) was enacted by the Parliament in the 38th year of Republic of India to constitute Legal Services Authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that the opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities and to organise Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. The Act of 1987 was brought into force on 9th of November, 1995 is a tribute to the framers of the Constitution, it furthers their endeavour to establish that thee would be equity before the law and a vibrant and fair justice delivery system that would ensure it. It is for the legal functionaries to achieve the goal set out in the Act of 1987 so that meaningful assi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document