KAUSHALYA BAI Vs. PILOURAM @ ROHITKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/appellant has filed an application for permission to sue as an indigent person in respect of a claim for arrears of maintenance from the respondent/defendant on the ground that she was legally married wife of the respondent and that she was entitled to maintenance from her husband from Jan., 1974. The said application was resisted by the respondent. The case was fixed by the trial Court on 23-2-1978 for recording evidence of the parties on pauperism. As the appellant did not appear that day, the application was dismissed for default of appearance.

(2.) On 19-6-1978, the appellant made an application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to an the 'Code') for restoration of the application for permission to sue as an indigent person, contending that the appellant had gone to Sarangarh to give evidence in a criminal case against the respondent and while returning from Sarangarh, respondent with the help of several associates abducted her and kept in his house at Village Jhanakpur, Somehow, the appellant managed to escape on 6-4-1978 and reached to her parents' house, but then again she fell ill and confined to bed. Before she could recover the Civil Court was closed for summer vacation and, therefore, the application for restoration was made on the first day of re-opening the Civil Courts i. e. on 19-5-1975. This application for restoration was resisted by the respondent-husband. After enquiry the Learned Trial Judge rejected the appellant's application for restoration of the pauper suit by holding that the appellant had failed to establish there was any reasonable cause which prevented her from making the application for restoration within the prescribed period. This appeal has been directed against the said order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Judge has taken a very strict view in the matter or restoration of the suit by rejecting the cogent evidence. He urged that the appellant was suffering from Typhoid and was incapable of moving an application before the close of the Civil Courts for summer vacation. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant appears to he reasonable.