RUTHRAMURTHY Vs. SATHIYA PRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(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..00 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 33, Rule 1 of CPC. The Court ordered an enquiry, to be Part 2 Ruthramurthy v. Sathiya Priya 121 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, dtd. 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 Twowheelers 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 RW1. 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.