The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a maintenance application filed in forma pauperis. The court upheld the lower court's observation that the appellant possessed adequate means via an unutilized advance receipt.
The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order dated 19.02.2015 was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.07.2019 (Reserved on 17.06.2019)
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CMA(MD)No.157 of 2019
R.Matheswaran ... Appellant/Petitioner
vs.
1)V.Srinivasan
2)S.Lakshmi Prabha
3)The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its District Collector, Tiruchirappalli.
4)The Sub Registrar, Srirangam. ... Respondents/Respondents
Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.02.2015 made in indigent O.P.No.1 of 2014 by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Vamsidhar For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Chandrakumar For R3 & R4 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The application filed by the plaintiff/ who filed the suit in forma pauperis in O.P.No.1/2014 alleging that the plaintiff has no means to pay the court fee, was dismissed by the lower court and as against which, the present CMA has been filed.
2.The claim of the plaintiff is that he has to pay the court fee of Rs.7,12,647.50/- and as his earning is only Rs.10,000/- per month, he is not able to pay the court fee.
3.The respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner's father had entered into a sale agreement and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner has received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as advance and therefore, the petitioner has adequate means to pay the court fee.
2
It is also contended by the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner during evidence, has deposed that on 07.06.2013, he has received an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for selling the property.
4.The Court below has specifically pointed out that the petitioner has not given any details as to the utilisation of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is not the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that he has already spent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and therefore, he has no money to pay the court fee. The court has rightly considered the circumstances and has held that the plaintiff has to pay the court fee. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the court below and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )
To
The Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
+1 CC to Mr.K.S.VAMSIDHAR, Advocate SR-79172. +1 CC to SPL GP SR-78851.
Judgment in CMA(MD)No.157 of 2019 30.07.2019
CS(14.08.2019) 2P 4C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court found any infirmity in the lower court's dismissal of the maintenance application filed in forma pauperis.
Whether the court's consideration of the petitioner's undisclosed utilization of advance proceeds as adequate means to pay court fee was legally sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
None cited in the textReferred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Matheswaran
V.Srinivasan
S.Lakshmi Prabha
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Sub Registrar, Srirangam
Nisha Banu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Nisha Banu
Parties & counsel
