SHRIMATI MOHINI Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Mohini, Petitioner No. 1 had sought permission of Court under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code on her own behalf and as next friend of her minor son, Raju petitioner No. 2 to file a suit in forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 35,185/- against her husband, Shri Virendra Kumar, respondent No. 1 and his father, Shri Lachhman Dass, respondent No. 2-A part of the amount is claimed by her as the price of her stridhan alleged to have been wrongfully detained by the respondents when the petitioners were said to have been forcibly turned out of the house of the respondents at Delhi on 14th November, 1965. The rest of the claim relates to past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 100/- per month for petitioner No. 2.

(2.) The evidence examined by the parties with regard to this petition for permission to sue in forma pauperis has been dealt with at length by the learned Sub-Judge at Ludhiana and he has come to the finding that petitioner is in possession of her stridhan which was a part of the subject-matter of her suit and that she is possessed of sufficient means which enable her to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint. He has therefore rejected the petition so far as Smt. Mohini is concerned but has allowed the suit to be registered in forma pauperis so far as the minor is concerned.

(3.) The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The scope of interference in revision is of a limited nature and where the evidence examined by the parties has been carefully assessed by the trial Court, the High Court cannot interfere in revision under Section 115 on the mere ground that another judicial officer could have differently assessed the weight given to the set of witnesses examined by either party. The jurisdiction to decide a matter carries with it the jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly according to the honest opinion of the particular judicial officer. There was reliable and cogent evidence, oral and documentary, to support the finding of fact of the learned Sub-Judge and I have only to see whether he has exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in him by law or that he has committed some material irregularity or illegality which has seriously prejudiced the parties.