The possession of property and gold ornaments does not necessarily indicate the ability to pay court fees, and a liberal approach should be taken in interpreting 'sufficient means' for claiming indigent circumstances.

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 mentioned in Ex.P7. It was also stated by the learned Judge that the wife has not denied the fact that at the time of marriage, she was given 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. The following passage in paragraph 11 of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:-

“11) Whether the first petitioner voluntarily left the respondent or not and whether she is entitled to maintenance or not have to be decided only at the time of trial in the suit. In this petition, it has to be decided whether the petitioners have sufficient means to pay Court fees. As per the admission made by PW1, she claimed share in the properties mentioned in Ex.P7. She has not denied that at the time of marriage, she was given 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments. She has right over the properties involved in the suit under Ex.P7 which originally belonged to the mother's mother of the first petitioner. So, she can very well raise funds through the said properties. So, the contention of the petitioner that she has no means to pay Court fees for the suit filed by her is not hold good. Since the first petitioner is entitled to a share in the properties mentioned in Ex.P7, she is capable of paying Court fees. Under such circumstances, the claim of the petitioners that they have no means to pay Court fees is not sustainable. Hence, the petitioners cannot be declared as in forma pauperis and the claim of the petitioners is rejected and this point is answered accordingly.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that absolutely there is no evidence on the side of the 1st respondent that 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the 1st appellant at the time of marriage and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent was not able to rebute the same. Therefore, the learned Judge is not correct in rejecting the indigent O.P.

6. I have perused the evidence of PW1. There was no suggestion made to PW1 at the time of cross-examination as to whether she was given of 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent has also fairly admitted that there is no evidence in that regard. Therefore, the only other ground that weighed with the learned Judge is that the 1st appellant has share in the property mentioned in Ex.P7. Ex.P7 is the plaint in O.S.No.25/2012. It is a partition suit filed by the 1st appellant along with her father and her brother claiming her share in the properties belonged to her grand-mother. Just because, she has share in the property and she claimed it by way of filing a suit, the same cannot be the reason to come to the conclusion that she is a person of having means to file a suit for maintenance against her husband. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Judge is not correct in relying a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.25/2