Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. From this provision aforesaid, I find-that irrespective of the fact what is the income of a woman or a child, they are eligible for getting legal services to file or defend the civil case in the Civil Court.

18. Right to free legal aid to pauper or indigent litigant in the Civil Court is also available under Order 33 of the C.P.C., 1908. The legal services which are provided under the Act, 1987 is in the form of providing the costs of the litigation which include Court-fees and a free professional service of an Advocate. Irrespective of the fact whether the litigant who has taken the legal services in filing of the litigation succeeds or fails therein whatever the amount is spent by the Legal Services Authority is not recoverable from the litigant concerned. Under Order 33 of the C.P.C. only a limited legal aid is available to pauper/indigent litigants in the Civil Court. The civil remedies are being availed of or utilised for the enforcement of civil rights or rights under common law. Under Order 33, one time legal aid is permissible by the Courts to the litigants in the civil case subject to fulfilment of the conditions as laid down under the different rules of this Order: One expectation is there to what the legal services provide under the Act, 1987 and that is on the success of the party in the litigation he has to pay the amount of Court-fees, the payment thereof which has temporarily been deferred by the Court initially. The reference in this context may have to the Rule 10 of this Order. It is not unknown to the Courts that a considerable long time is being consumed by them in deciding the applications filed by the litigants under Order 33 of the C.P.C. granting permission to them to file the suit as indigent person. A person is an indigent person if he is not possessed of sufficient means (other than in property exempt attachment in execution of decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fees prescribed by law for the plaint or where no such fee is prescribed, if he is not entitled to property worth Rs. 1,000/- other than the property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree, and subject-matter of the suit. Any property which is acquired by a person after the presentation of his application for permission to sue as an indigent person, and before the decision of the application shall be taken into account in considering the question whether or not the applicant is an indigent person. Rule 1-A of Order 33 of the Code makes a provision for inquiry into the means of an indigent person. Every inquiry into the question whether or not a person is indigent person snail be made, in the first instance, by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court, unless the Court otherwise directs, and the Court may adopt report of such officer as its own finding or itself make an inquiry into the question. Rule 2 of this Order provides for the contents of the application. Rue 3 provides for the presentation of the application and Rule 4 for examination of the applicant. Rule 5 provides for the rejection of application and if we go by this provision there is sufficient scope available to the Court to reject the application. Rule 6 provides for the notice of a day for receiving evidence of the applicant's indigency. Rule 7 makes a provision for the procedure of hearing of this application. Rule 8 is a provision for procedure if the application is admitted. Rule 9 empowers the Court of the withdrawal of permission to sue as an indigent person. Rule 9A which has been inserted in the Order 33, w.e.f. 1st February, 1977, immediately after Article 39-A has been inserted in the Constitution, provides that where a person who is permitted to sue as an indigent person is not represented by Pleader the Court may if the circumstances of the case so require assign a Pleader to him. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9-A of the Order 33 of the Code provides that the High Court may with the previous approval of the State Government may make Rules providing for a mode of selecting Pleaders to be assigned under Sub-rule (1), the facilities to be provided to such Pleader by the Court and any other matter which is required to be or may be provided by the rules for giving effect to the provisions of Sub-rule (1). Rule 10 of this Order lays down that where the plaintiff succeeds in a suit the Court shall calculate the amount of Court-fees which should have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as an indigent person; such amount shall be recoverable by the State Government from any party ordered by the decree to pay the same, and shall be first charge on the subject-matter of the suit. Rule 11 of the Order 33 of the Code provides that where the plaintiff fails in the suit or the permission granted to him to sue as indigent person is withdrawn, or where the suit is withdrawn or dismissed because the summons for the defendant to appear and answer has not been served upon him in consequences of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee or postal charges (if any) chargeable for such service or to present copies of the plaint or concise statement or because the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall order the plaintiff, or any person added as co-plaintiff to the suit, to pay the Court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as an indigent person. Rule 16 provides that the cost of application for permission to sue as art indigent and of any inquiry into indigency shall be costs in the suit. Rule 18 makes a provision for power of the Government to provide for free legal services to indigent person. This provision reads as under :

"Rule 18 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Central or State Government may make such supplementary provisions as it thinks fit for providing free legal services to those who have been permitted to sue as indigent persons.

(2) The High Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make rules for carrying out the supplementary provisions made by the Central or State Government for providing free legal services to indigent persons referred to in Sub-rule (1), and such rules may include the nature and extent of such legal services, the conditions under which they may be made available, the matters in respect of which, and the agencies through which, such services may be rendered."

19. So from the scheme of Order 33 of the Code, I find that if a litigant is an indigent person he has to apply for grant of permission to file suit in such capacity and in that case if it is granted men he will be exempted from payment of the Court-fees and the Court or the State Government would provide free legal services to him also. The inquiry to be conducted for deciding the application of a litigant to accept him indigent person is time consuming and in the case of his success in the case, the Court-fees which is payable on the plaint has to be paid by him or the State Government will have first charge on the subject-matter of the suit. In case of dismissal of the suit in the contingencies as provided under Order 33 of the Code the plaintiff is liable to pay the amount of Court-fees to the Government. Be that it may, from the scheme of this order, I find that an indigent person has been exempted from payment of the Court-fees as well as being provided free legal services, though subject to certain conditions. But in the case of the person of the category as provided under Section 12 of the Act, 1987 they will get free legal aid and irrespective of the result of the success or failure in the litigation they are not required to refund the amount of the Court-fees and other expenses incurred in the litigation by the authority. It is unfortunate that despite of holding legal literary camps and Lok Adalats and further having Legal Service Authorities of Taluka, District and High Court level, we are not able to make known to the litigants of the categories as enumerated in the Section 12 of the Act, 1987 about their right to get free legal aid. So from these facts, it is clear that this programme is not successful to the extent what otherwise it would have been. This case clearly exhibits that the wife is unaware of the provisions of the Act, 1987 and as contained in Order 33 of the Code. I am constrained to state that the members of the Bar also not make this class of litigants know their rights under the Act, 1987 or Order 33 of the Code for the reasons best known to them. The Advocates can play a real and effective role to make know this class of the litigants for these legal services and the provisions as contained in Order 33 of the Code. In the present case, the lady was an indigent person. But she filed application through the Advocate. It is difficult to believe that the Advocate would not have charged anything from her towards his professional fees. Even it is taken that in this case the Advocate would not have charged fees from this lady still that may not be reasonable and practical approach, because when they feel that the litigant who had approached him is an indigent person or a litigant who falls under the category of persons' enumerated in the Act, 1987 they should have been given the necessary information of free legal services available to them under the aforesaid Act as well as under Order 33 of the Code. In case, the petitioner-wife would have approached the Legal Service Authority under the Act, 1987 then decision on her application for interim maintenance would not have been delayed and she was not required to undergo the time consuming and long battle of the inquiry for deciding her application under Order 33 of the Code. Even under Order 33 of the Code, the Advocate should have advised her to file application for declaring her indigent person herself and in that case as it is provided under Rules 9-A and 18 of the aforesaid Order, free legal services, would have been provided to her either by the Court or by the Government. She was not required to pay single penny from her pocket towards the legal services. In such case it would have been more easy for the Court also to accept the plea of the lady of her indigency. Where a litigant appears through an Advocate with prayer to permit her to file a case as indigent person many times to Court may see with suspicion in what she stated in the Court regarding her position and status.

21. I am at pains to state that on one side we are talking of giving absolute free legal aid to women even of those classes where they have sufficient means to bear the expenses of litigation and on the other hand she is facing cumbersome, lengthy and difficult procedure in the Courts for grant of permission to her for filing her substantive application as an indigent person in a matrimonial dispute. We should not feel contended and satisfied as if our programmes of holding literacy camps and Lok Adalats are successful where the real fact is that women are still subject to manifold hardships, difficulties and suffering in litigation before the Courts. It is really shocking that the husband who has pious duty of maintaining his wife or to provide her with basic necessities of life, is contesting her just and reasonable claim of temporary maintenance in her substantive application under Section 18 of the Act, 1958. This approach of the husband is wholly arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the principles of basic need of livelihood. The Court is also equally responsible where a simple matter of grant of application of a woman of permitting her to file her substantive application under Section 18 of the Act, 1958 as an indigent person, has not decided the same for long period. When an application of this nature has been presented by a woman in the Court, the matter should have been decided with reference to the provisions of the Act, 1987 or it should have been referred to the District Legal Services Authority for grant of free legal services to the lady so that this defence should not have been put from the side of the husband and the Court's valuable time would not have been consumed in deciding this application. The tune now comes and more so in view of the constitutional provisions as contained in Articles 21 and 39-A as well as Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court should have justice-oriented approach in such matters. These matters are to be given top priority and where the Court is satisfied that the litigant is a person of the category which is entitled for free legal aid under the Act, 1987 either the application under Order 33 should have been decided in that context without holding an inquiry and the litigant should not have only been granted permission to file substantial application as an indigent person but a free professional service of an Advocate also. The other way would have been to send the matter to the concerned Legal Services Authority. In this case, the learned Trial Court has not taken either of the courses and it has proceeded in the matter as if the lady is an ordinary litigant and she has to be subjected to all dilemma of our present system prevailing in the Courts.