Arrears of maintenance in the hand of the wife, whether spent or unspent, being exempt from attachment, are not property which can be reckoned towards determining the question whether she was an indigent person to pursue her cause in suit or appeal.

1. This is a revision petition against the order of Shri J. C. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby he declined permission to the petitioner to file an appeal before him as an indigent person.

2. The broad facts of the case are that Smt. Parwati, the petitioner, filed a suit for maintenance under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, as an indigent person. Permission was granted to her by the trial Judge in accordance with the provisions of O.33, R.1 of the Civil P.C. Smt. Parwati failed in the suit. She filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, taking the aid of O.44, Rr.1 and 3 of the Civil P.C. averring on affidavit that since she was allowed to file the suit as an indigent person and had not ceased to be an indigent person since the date of the decree appealed from, her appeal be entertained without payment of Court-fee. The husband-respondent took objection to the continuance of her status as an indigent person and avail concession. There upon, the appellant Court framed the only issue: "Whether the appellant-petitioner ceased to be an indigent person after the passing of the impugned decree? OPR."

3. The husband-respondent deposed that he had paid Rs.3,500/- to the wife-petitioner in the High Court on Aug. 5, 1983, which represented Rs.500/- as litigation expenses and the balance Rs.3,000/- towards arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.150/- per mensem. Though the details of this litigation have unfortunately not been brought on the present record, but learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses are allowed to the wife-petitioner in FAO No.65-M of 1981 in which the husband was claiming in appeal dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. It has further been stated at the Bar that he was unsuccessful in his pursuit. Further the husband stated that he had paid further maintenance at the rate of Rs.150/- per mensem from Oct. 1, 1983 to Sept. 20, 1984. In this manner, he maintained that a sum of Rs.3,500/- had been placed in the hands of the wife-petitioner and, therefore, she had acquired sufficient means to pay the Court-fee and could not file the appeal as an indigent person. The wife, on the other hand, admitted having received the aforesaid sums of money but claimed that she had paid to her counsel at Chandigarh a sum of Rs.700/- and had spent about Rs.400/- on travelling to Chandigarh. She further stated that she had raised a loan three or four years earlier to Jan. 17, 1985, to the tune of Rs.2,500/- to meet the litigation expenses and she had returned that loan of Rs.2,500/- about 1½ years before Jan. 17, 1985 (the day she was deposing). She denied the suggestion that she was in possession of a sum of Rs.3,500/- in addition to the sum representing future maintenance. The learned Additional District Judge disbelieved the version of the wife on the ground that she had not examined her counsel from Chandigarh to support her plea that a sum of Rs.700/- had been paid by her to him. nor had she produced any receipt of the counsel though statedly one was lying with her at her house. Further, he took the view that for going to Chandigarh two times, as deposed to by the wife, not more than Rs.100/- coulcl have been spent. Regarding the return of Rs.2,500/- he observed that there was no evidence except her own bald statement, and that though the loan was alleged to have been repaid by her to her maternal uncle, who had since expired, other relations had not been produced by her to support the repayment. On this analysis, it was held that she had failed to explain the sum of Rs.3,500/- or the subsequent amounts received by her. Besides, it went against her for not including the share she had in her father s house, as admittedly her father had died in the meantime, without recording any finding as to what was the value of her share and whether it was saleable or was it a house solely in