The main legal point established is that the Family Court must follow the mandatory procedure under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure when allowing a party to file as an Indigent Person.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order in P.O.P.No. 3 of 2013 dated 22.11.2019 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Salem.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner, who is the 1st Respondent in P.O.P.No.3 of 2013 and the Defendant in O.S.No.35 of 2019.

2. It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that his wife had filed P.O.P.No.3 of 2013 to file the suit as forma pauperis and the suit had been filed seeking past maintenance of Rs.16,20,000/-. The Petitioners in P.O.P.No.3 of 2013 had stated that they had to be permitted to file the suit as Indigent Persons under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of CPC. The Court ordered an enquiry, to be conducted by the District Collector of the district concerned. In this case, no report was obtained by the learned Family Court Judge, Salem, and she had passed an order permitting the Petitioners to conduct the case as Indigent Persons in P.O.P.No.3 of 2013 as per order dated 22.11.2019. In spite of the counter filed by the Revision Petitioner as Respondent/Defendant stating that the 1st Petitioner in P.O.P.No.3 of 2013 was employed at L.R.N. Motors, Salem, and she was earning salary, also she had jewels and two wheelers with registration number, which were furnished by the Petitioners as Respondents in the Civil Revision Petition. During an enquiry, the 1st Respondent was examined as R.W.1. Exhibits were marked as Ex.R1 is the details of the employees of L.R.N. Motors, Salem, in which the 1st Petitioner is stated to be working, Ex.R2 is the copy of the Registration Certificate of Motorcycle and Ex.R3 series are the photos and C.D containing the pictures of the 1st Petitioner working in a private concern were marked.

3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the learned Family Court Judge, Salem, had not ordered enquiry to be conducted by the Revenue Officials regarding the status of the Petitioner and had allowed the Petition. Aggrieved by the same, he had filed this Civil Revision Petition.

4. When the learned Counsel for the Respondent was about to submit his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/husband filed additional typed set as proof of his claim that the Respondents in the Civil Revision Petition, the wife, had been in employment at LRN Motor and filed a photostat copy of the registration copy of the two wheeler, wherein the name of the wife is found. Therefore, it is the submission that she had been in employment, was earning income, and owned a twowheeler. Therefore, her claim that she is an Indigent Person cannot at all be accepted.

5. Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 vehemently objected to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. The learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner as Indigent Person was unable to pay Court fee. Therefore, the Petition was filed as P.O.P.No.3 of 2013. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Salem, was a well-reasoned order and does not warrant any interference.

6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents invited the attention of this Court to the observation of the learned Family Court Judge, Salem, which reads as follows:

“8. It is admitted that the 1st Petitioner is the wife and Petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor sons of the 1st Respondent. It is also admitted that the 1st Petitioner and the 1st Respondent are residing separately from 2009 and that the F.C.O.P.No.128/2011 filed by the 1st Petitioner for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was dismissed and F.C.O.P.No.114/2011 filed by the 1st Respondent for divorce was allowed. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to relief of maintenance is the issue to be decided in the suit and the suit cannot be decided in this Petition. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to file the suit as Indigent Persons is the only issue to be decided in this Petition. Though the 1st Petitioner is stated to be working i