RANGANATHA ALIAS RANGAIAH Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, Code, has been filed by the husband of the opposite party, against whom, the opposite party had filed a suit for maintenance and while, filing the plaint in the suit, the opposite party had moved an miscellaneous application under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code, for being adjudged as an indigent person.

(2.) The Trial Court after consideration of the material on record declared the opposite party to be the indigent person vide order dated 16-9-1995. The husband of the opposite party, has filed this revision under Section 115 of the Code challenging the order under which the opposite party has been allowed to sue as an indigent person.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is respondent 1, in the Trial Court. It is urged by the learned Counsel that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the intent of legislature in the enacting of the provision for allowing the persons to sue as indigent persons. Further, he submitted before me that the opposite party, who is petitioner before the Trial Court and respondent 1, in course of her cross- examination has admitted that at the time of her marriage, she has been given two strips gold chain, a mangalasutra and a finger ring. That the Court below committed error of law when it declared her as an indigent person as it has not taken into consideration these ornaments of opposite party which admittedly, she had got in her marriage. It has been urged out that the respondent was married to the present revisionist sometimes in 1986, and these ornaments are alleged to have been given in the marriage. That when she i.e., respondent was cross examined and asked whether she yet continues to be in possession of those ornament, opposite party denied that she is possessed of those ornaments. That in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 519 of 1990, she had admitted the possession of those ornaments. On the basis of these statements, learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that when she, as mentioned earlier, admitted possession of the ornaments given to her in marriage, she is presumed to be continuing in possession of those ornaments and that should have been taken into consideration by the Court below for the purpose of determining her status as indigent person. Finally, the learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the ornaments could be sold and the amount towards Court fee could have been arranged by her and therefore, Court below acted illegally in not taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and the order impugned as such is liable to be challenged under Section 115 etc., and the revision is maintainable on the ground of Court's acting illegally and with material irregularity.