MT CHAMELA KUAR Vs. PURSOTTAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a very unfortunate case. The petitioner is the wife of defendant 1 both of whom are fairly advanced in age. The case of the petitioner is that she was turned out from the house of her husband and she loft the house with a pair of saris only. She brought the suit for maintenance claiming Rs. 150 a month with arrears for two months and for recovery of possession of her ornaments and jewellery and she further wants a house for her residence. She stated that she had no property in her possession and that whatever property she had she left in the house of her husband when she left the house.

(2.) She therefore made an application for leave to sue as a pauper, and in her application she gave a schedule of the properties which according to her were valued at Rs. 72-8-0. The court-fee payable upon her plaint is more than Rs. 1,200. Her authorized agent was examined by the Court under Order 33, Rule 4. The Court thereafter issued notice under Order 33, Rule 6 which evidently shows that it was satisfied that there was no ground for rejecting the application under Rule 5. The Government Pleader after enquiry reported that the petitioner was a pauper. Defendant 1 however filed an objection at a late stage stating that the petitioner had ornaments and jewellery worth about Rs. 5,000 and had got other articles which were sufficient to pay the court-fee. The petitioner was then examined in Court. She denied her having ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 5,000.

(3.) In her plaint she had claimed ornaments worth Rs. 3,000 as having been taken away by the husband; but in the course of her cross-examination she stated that she had got four or five petis (boxes) whereas in her schedule she had shown that she had only two trunks. Again in her evidence she mentioned that she had four or five chaukis whereas in her schedule she bad stated that she had only two chaukis.