Madras High Court
Leema M.L.Balis vs Renjith Singh on 14 March, 2017
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.496 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD) No.2351 of 2017 Leema M.L.Balis ... Petitioner / Plaintiff -vs- Renjith Singh ... Respondent / Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to docket order, dated 04.02.2017, made in P.O.P.No.321 of 2012, on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and to set aside the same. !For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Ramakrishna Dass ^For Respondent : :ORDER
The revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed this revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the docket order, dated 04.02.2017, made in P.O.P.No.321 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, directed the revision petitioner / plaintiff to pay the requisite Court fee for the claim of maintenance from her husband.
2. According to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, her husband / respondent, who is working in the Special Security Wing of the Indian Army, is not maintaining her properly and therefore, he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month towards maintenance and he is also entitled to realize a sum of Rs.31,10,000/- (Rupees thirty one lakhs and ten thousand only) towards jewels, cash and household articles given to him during their marriage.
3. While filing the suit, she has presented the plaint claiming herself as a pauper and the Shriasthar of the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, recorded her statement and placed the matter before the learned District Judge for appropriate orders. The learned District Judge has made his own enquiry and called for a report from the learned Government Pleader with regard to the revision petitioner / plaintiff's claim of indigency. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader filed a report indicating that the revision petitioner / plaintiff is having properties in Kerala and therefore, she is not entitled to claim herself as a papuer. In view of the same, the learned District Judge, by an order dated 04.02.2017, directed the revision petitioner / plaintiff to pay the requisite Court fee based on her claim and to continue the litigation.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 04.02.2017, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed the present civil revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner / plaintiff submitted that without disposing the suit filed by the revision petitioner / plaintiff as a pauper suit, the Trial Court has pre-maturely concluded that the revision petitioner / plaintiff is not entitled to continue the litigation, without payment of requisite Court fee. While concluding so, the Trial Court has failed to note that the revision petitioner / plaintiff has no sufficient means at her disposal and therefore, the order of the learned District Judge is in violation of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mathai M.Paikeday v. C.K.Antony, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 174 and this Court in Malarkodi and another vs. Sakthivel and another, reported in 2015 (1) TNCJ 803 (MAD) (MB).
6. In Mathai M.Paikeday v. C.K.Antony (cited supra), the Honourable Apex Court has held that:
?The burden of establishing indigency is on the defendant claiming indigent status, who must demonstrate not that he or she is entirely destitute and without funds, but that payments for counsel would place an undue hardship on his or her ability to provide the basic necessities of life for himself or herself and his or her family. Factors particularly relevant to the determination of whether a party to a civil proceeding is indigent are : (1) the party's employment status and income, including income from government sources such as social security and unemployment benefits; (2) the ownership of any unencumbered assets, including real or personal property and monies on deposit; and (3) the party's total indebtedness and any financial assistance received from family or close friends.?
7. In this case, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has pleaded that she hails from an affluent family and jewels and household articles worth about Rs.30,00,000/- were given to her husband / respondent at the time of their marriage. It is also evident through the enquiry conducted by the learned District Judge that the revision petitioner / plaintiff is having properties in Kerala. According to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, they are joint family properties and without any substantial income. However, these facts were not established by the revision petitioner / plaintiff before the learned District Judge though the matter is pending right from 16.11.2012 and sufficient opportunities have been given to her for nearly about five years. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the learned District Judge and it does not warrant interference by this Court and the civil revision petition is, therefore, liable to the dismissed.
8. In the result, the civil revision petition fails and it is dismissed. Since the time for payment of Court fee is expired as early as on 04.03.2017, the revision petitioner / plaintiff is granted time till 27.04.2017 for payment of requisite Court fee. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
Note to Office: Registry is directed to return the original papers to the revision petitioner forthwith.
To:
The District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil..