Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.01 seconds)Mt. Kanizum Hani vs Syed Mohammad And Ors. on 21 April, 1933
A Hindu son is liable to maintain his disabled father under the provisions of the Hindu Maintenance and Guardianship Act. That apart if the son keeps his father with him and maintains him that would not mean that the father is now possessed of all the properties of his sons which he can utilise in any manner he likes. The income or the assets of the son would, therefore, not be taken into account while considering whether the plaintiff is a pauper. It was observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Mt. Kanizum Hani v. Syed Mohammad (AIR 1933 All 556) that a person may have rich relations, and yet he or she may not be in a position to pay the court-fee. If he is not possessed of any means, the question whether or not the alleged, rich relations of the applicant were in a position to pay the court-fee which the applicant would have to pay should not be gone into, and he should be allowed to sue as a pauper. In the case in hand the court below fell in error while rejecting the application when there was no evidence that the plaintiff was possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law. The court below has thus exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
1