1. The petitioner is the wife and she has a minor daughter aged 10 years. She filed a suit under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against her husband and mother-in-law claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter Karthika. The matter was taken up in Indigent O.P.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Karur.

2. The case of the 1st appellant/wife was that the respondent/husband failed to maintain her and the minor child. Hence, they filed a suit claiming maintenance. They were not able to pay the court fee due to indigent circumstances. It was objected to by the 1st respondent/husband, on the ground that the 1st appellant was given 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage, besides, she has share in the ancestral property.

3. The 1st appellant/wife examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the respondents, the 1st respondent/husband examined himself as RW1, but he did not choose to mark any documentary evidence.

4. Upon evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Judge, Karur, rejected the Indigent O.P.No.1 of 2012, on the ground that the 1st appellant has share in the properties mention