The conditions for suing as an indigent person under O. 33, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied if the petitioner proves that they are an indigent person and that the allegations made in the petition, if accepted as true, would entitle them to the relief claimed.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Balasore permitting the opposite party to sue as an indigent person.

( 2 ) INDISPUTEDLY the opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner. Both of them lived in the house of the latter when there seems to have been some discord between them. According to the allegations made by the opposite party, when she was pregnant the petitioner took her out on the plea that it was necessary to get her examined by a doctor, but as a matter of fact left her in the home of her parents. Thereafter, despite requests he is not taking her back to the matrimonial home. She, therefore, intended to institute a suit for dissolution of marriage, for recovery of dowery debt amounting to Rs. 950/- and for recovery of articles described in Schedule 'a' of the plaint valued at Rs. 11,391. 75. She had, however, no means to pay court-fee worth Rs. 1176. 75 on the plaint and so she filed a petition under O. 33, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('code' for short) to sue as an indigent person.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in his objection stated that the opposite party had gold and silver ornaments valued at Rs. 14,950/ -. When she departed from his house she took all the ornaments with her. Therefore, she had sufficient means to pay court-fee on the suit.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Subordinate Judge on hearing both parties came to hold that the opposite party was able to establish that she was an indigent person. Accordingly he allowed her to sue as such.

( 5 ) MR. Y. S. N. Murty, appearing for the petitioner urged that the opposite party did not satisfy the conditions laid down in cls. (b) and (d) of R. 5 of O. 33 of the Code and so the petition of the opposite party to sue as an indigent person is liable to be rejected. Mr. C. V. Murty, appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, contended that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the opposite party is an indigent person in terms of R. 1 of O. 33 of the Code and the allegations made in the petition, which includes the plaint, discloses a cause of action. Therefore, the conditions laid down in cls. (b) and (d) of R. 5, O. 33 of the Code have been duly satisfied. It is necessary to examine the contentions.

( 6 ) THE opposite party examined herself and stated in court that when she was pregnant, the petitioner left her in the home of her parents. She had not brought her ornaments with her. The petitioner examined himself and two other witnesses to show that the opposite party had left her matrimonial home with all the gold and silver ornaments. Indisputedly, there was discord between the parties. The opposite party was pregnant and as a matter of fact, she was delivered of a child on the very night she was left at her parents' home. In such circumstances there is nothing to disbelieve her evidence to the effect that she was made to leave her matrimonial home in a state of advanced pregnancy without her gold and silver ornaments. It would be absurd to accept a theory that a woman quick with child would think of wearing gold and silver ornaments or while expecting to deliver of a child will carry them with her. In view of the evidence on record, I am in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge that the opposite party proved that she is an indigent person.

( 7 ) MR. Y. S. N. Murty urged that the learned court below did not record a positive finding after due enquiry that the opposite party has a cause of action. In the absence of such a finding, according to him, the petition under O. 1, R. 33 of the Code is liable to be rejected. From the impugned order, it does not appear that any such contention was raised before the learned court below. On the other hand, it seems to have been assumed that the allegations made by the opposite party revealed a cause of action and on the basis of such assumption the case was