Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners. The 1st plaintiff is the mother of the minor 2nd plaintiff. Their application to the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis to obtain reliefs of future maintenance and recovery of arrears of maintenance was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge. The total value of the reliefs claimed by them was Rs. 11,700. The first plaintiff gave the value of the properties belonging to her as Rs. 327 and the value of the properties belonging to the minor 2nd plaintiff as nil. The Rs. 327 worth of moveables was of course not sufficient to pay the Court fee stamps on the reliefs worth Rs. 11,700, the Court fee required being Rs. 535. The Lower Court did not go into the question whether the plaintiffs pauperism was established but it rejected the application on the ground that the requirements of Order 33, Rule 5, had not been complied with by the petitioners. That Rule 5 says that the Court should reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper (a) where the application is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3, (6) where the applicant is not a pauper, (c) whe