ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. This civil petition under Order 14, Rule I of CPC is by a wife who had sought for enhancement of maintenance amount before the Family Court at Mysore and who is dissatisfied with the enhancement as allowed by the Family Court.
2. For the purpose of getting over that order and to get a better maintenance from the respondent, the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, but being unable to pay the Court fee of Rs. 2,400/- payable on such an appeal, the petitioner has filed this civil petition praying for permission to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person.
3. Notice having been issued, respondent-husband is represented by counsel M/s. M. B. Nargund and Sona Vakkund.
4. I have heard Sri Manmohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent.
5. No more material of evidence is required to be placed before the Court to reach the conclusion that the petitioner is an indigent person. Petitioner, a wife who has been driven out of the matrimonial house and who is forced to stay alone for life, has sought for maintenance from the husband which had been allowed earlier and as it appears the income of the respondent has increased over a period of time and cost of living also has gone up, the petitioner has sought for enhancement.
6. It is submitted by Sri Manmohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the enhancement sought for before the trial Court was up to Rs. 3,500/- per month but what has been allowed is only Rs. 1,500/-; that the amount that the petitioner gets as maintenance is very meager and not sufficient to maintain herself and there is no possibility of the petitioner paying the Court fee in such a situation.
Though Sri Sanjeev Kumar Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent prays for time to file objections, I do not think there is any need for filing objections in a matter of this nature. It is rather puzzling and unfortunate that in appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1987 which provision is invoked by a wife who has either been denied maintenance or maintenance awarded is meagre, she is made to pay Court fee on ad valorem basis under Article 1 of Schedule I to the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Sri Manmohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no other provisions which can be invoked by the petitioner to get over the hardship of being compelled to pay a hefty Court fee.
7. While this may be a matter for examination and for making suitable provision by the legislature, as of now, the relief that can be granted by the Court in this petition is to allow this civil petition and to permit the petitioner to sue as an indigent person to prosecute the appeal.
8. Accordingly, civil petition is allowed.