Ekbal-unnissa Begum vs Mir Ahmed Ali Khan

This is a revision petition against the order of the lower Court dismissing the Petitioners petition to sue in forma pauperis. The suit of the Petitioner was for Rs. 75,000/- alleged to be dower due by the Defendant to her. The court-fees for the suit in question is Rs. 2,600/-, Petitioner stated that she was in possession some wearing apparel and one wooden and tin box. In his counter the Defendant stated the the Petitioner was in possession of some her at Kothapet and in the city of Hyderabad; the she received big amounts by way of rents make the; that she had property received by of ''dhez'' given to her at the time of her marry and that therefore she was not a pauper, lower court recorded the evidence as to pauperism. On behalf of the Petitioner best herself, 4 witnesses were produced who state the Petitioner is a pauper, that she has no income except Rs. 57/- p.m. which she gets from the or of Mehallat and that she is not in a position pay a court-fee of Rs. 2,600/- or Rs. 3,000/-. rebuttal the Respondent produced two witness who state that the Petitioner had gone to Defendant''s father''s house for Niaz where saw that she was wearing jewels costing 1,000/- or Rs. 1,50(1/-. On this evidence the law court rejected the petition.

After going through the evidence of the pay we are of the opinion that the conclusion (sic) at by the learned Judge of the lower Court is verse. The Petitioner has given her statement detail. She states-that she had some money (at Rs. 1200/-) a year or so back and that she (sic) the same on the sickness of her husband. We to see whether she spent the amount or (sic) of any property fraudulently within two (sic) before the presentation of the application (sic) Order 33, Rule 5(c). There is no such evidence on cord; nor has the lower court held that she posed of such property for purposes of the Rule. The mere statement that the petition was admittedly in possession of ''dhez'' (sic) and that she has not proved as to what (sic) to that property is not enough for the purport of that Rule. The allegation of the Respondent that the Petitioner possessed houses and may and other property is vague. No proof was (sic) coming in support of that allegation. The fence witnesses cannot be relied upon. The statements that in spite of the fact that the Petitioner was divorced and relations were strata she went to the house of her husband or husband father for Niaz cannot be believed in.

The court-fee necessary for the suit is of a amount viz., 2,000/-. The Petitioner herself she that she gets only Rs. 57/- per month from Mehallat. Obviously there are no other (sic) income. Under the circumstances, we are opinion that her petition in forma pauperis be allowed. We allow this revision petition aside the order of the lower court and direct her petition be registered as a suit and (sic) of according to law. The costs of this (sic) will abide the result.