ALKA NANDWANI Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge Shri Gurdeep Kumar dated July 24, 2004 whereby the application of the appellant herein filed under Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Court to file the suit as an indigent person was dismissed.

(2.) It was contended before the learned Additional Judge and now before this Court that the sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month which was being received as interim maintenance and also the further sum of Rs. 65,000/- were spent on day-to-day needs of the appellants. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the submission on the ground that no proof of day to day expenses was rendered by the appellant and also on the ground that they had suppressed the fact that they had received Rs. 65,000/- in cash. It was also further observed that appellant No. 1 was wearing gold jewellery and she also did not disclose as to what happened to the scooter, refrigerator and the VCR. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly dismissed the application of the appellant under Order 33 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Normally, no one keeps an account of day to day expense and in any case interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- which the appellants have been receiving was too meager a sum for which they should have been asked to render an account. Even the additional sum of Rs. 65,000/- which appellant No. 1 had received under Section 406/498A IPC was also not a very huge amount. As regards the scooter, refrigerator and VCR are concerned, these items are not hard cash. In any case, they are more or less necessities of life.

(3.) In view of the above, I set aside the order dated July 24, 2004 and grant leave to the appellants to sue as indigent persons. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.