RAKESH KUMAR GOYAL Vs. RAJ RANI SAVEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Dhuri dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The revision-petitioner is husband of Raj Rani and father of the minor daughter Charu. Raj Rani and Charu filed a suit for maintenance as indigent persons. The application to permit them to file the suit as indigent persons is pending. In the application, the evidence of the petitioner was closed and the matter was adjourned for the evidence of the revision-petitioner. At that time, the revision-petitioner filed an application to dismiss the application filed under Order 33 Civil Procedure Code on the ground that there was a compromise in the proceedings for divorce by mutual consent and according to the said compromise, the maintenance was also granted and the wife agreed to withdraw all the proceedings pending against each other. That application has been dismissed by the trial Court. The revision-petitioner filed this revision petition. The claim in the suit which is sought to be filed by the plaintiffs as indigent persons, is for maintenance of the daughter of the revision-petitioner and his wife Raj Rani, who was born during their wedlock. There cannot be any doubt that the daughter is entitled to a maintenance from his father. The only question that is to be decided in the application for suing an indigent persons is whether the petitioners therein are not having sufficient means to pay the Court fee and whether the suit is within time and whether it discloses a cause of action. Prima facie the allegations in the plaint disclose a cause of action and there is no dispute that the suit is not barred by time. It is for the trial Court on the basis of evidence, to decide whether the plaintiffs have got no sufficient means to pay court fee. The alleged compromise for withdrawal of the proceedings between the wife and the husband cannot be decided in that application. Further it appears that the suit has been filed for maintenance of the daughter. Whether the compromise takes away the right of the daughter to claim maintenance is to be decided only during the trial of the suit not at this stage. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner to dismiss the proceedings is frivolous and was rightly dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this revision petition. As the husband filed the application in the trial Court when the matter was posted for his evidence after closure of the evidence of the petitioner therein and further he approached this Court without any valid ground, I am of the opinion that the respondents are entitled to costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.

(3.) The revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/-.