S. N. Shankar, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition for permission to file this appeal in forma pauperis. Notice of this application was issued to the two respondents to this appeal as well as to the Collector. They have all been served. Neither the respondents nor the Collector have filed any reply in opposition to the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents says that the petitioner had been allowed to file her suit in forma pauperis and her circumstances have not in any way changed thereafter and that is why he has not filed a reply to the petition. He however urges that even though the petitioner may be pauper but the present petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions in sub-clause (2) of Rule 1 of Order 44, Code of Civil Procedure, and that the petition deserves to be rejected because the decree in the instant case is neither contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law, nor is it otherwise erroneous or unjust. ( 2 ) I do not see how the above provision in sub-rule (1) of rule 1 of Order 44, Code of Civil Procedure is attracted in the facts of this case. The Court below has found and in fact it is not disputed that the petitioner was married to the respondent. The plea of divorce set up by the respondent in defence has been negatived by the Court and has been found to be false. It is a matter to be decided on the merits as to whether the finding that the petitioner was still not entitled to maintenance is sustainable or not. Prima facie a wife would be entitled to the maintenance and it would be unjust to deprive her of this. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has, however, taken a more formidable objection in reward to the presentation of this petition. He relies on Order 33, rule 5 and says that this petition has not been presented as specified by Order 33, rule 3. ( 4 ) A reference to the record shows that this petition addressed to the District Judge was presented on 24th of October, 1966, to the Senior Subordinate Judge for the District Judge by Smt. Gitti, the appellant in person. The value of the appeal for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 7,200. 00. ( 4 ) A reference to the record shows that this petition addressed to the District Judge was presented on 24th of October, 1966, to the Senior Subordinate Judge for the District Judge by Smt. Gitti, the appellant in person. The value of the appeal for purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 7,200. 00. The learned District Judge, therefore, returned the application to be presented to the proper Court as he had no jurisdiction and was not competent to entertain the appeal with this valuation Alongwith the petition, power of attorney in favour of Shri Madho Parshad, advocate, was also filed by the petitioner. The said Shri Madho Parshad in pursuance of this order of the District Judge received back the application of the 21st of November, 1966, from the Court of the District Judge and by his endorsement dated 25th of November, 1966, the learned counsel again presented this petition to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and recorded that the appeal had been wrongly filed by the petitioner to the District Judge, Mandi and Chamba because its value for the purposes of jurisdiction was Rs. 7,2001- an that the same may therefore be entertained by the Judicial Commissioner, which it is not disputed was the Court competent to receive the application. ( 5 ) IT is evident from the above that provisions of Order 33, rule 3 were not complied with. The petition was not filed by the applicant personally in the competent Court. The application had to be presented by the present petitioner in person unless she was exempted from appearance in Court and it is nobody s rase that she was so exempted. In fact, she had herself appeared before the Senior Subordinate Judge to present this appeal when. at first filed as stated earlier. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Papathi Ammal v. Karuppiah Pillai. In that case, the suit as a pauper had been instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ramnad and the petitioner was permitted to sue in forma pauperis. at first filed as stated earlier. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Papathi Ammal v. Karuppiah Pillai. In that case, the suit as a pauper had been instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ramnad and the petitioner was permitted to sue in forma pauperis. Later on, however, it was found that the value of the suit made it triable by the District Munsif of Ramnad A memorandum was, therefore, submitted by both the parties and they agreed that the suit be tried by the District Munsif s Court at Ramnad and thereupon the plaint was returned for presentation to the Court under Order 7, rule 10. No personal presentation of the suit in the second court was held to be called for. This is not the position here. In this case the application had not at all been entertained by the learned District Judge. No finding as to the pauperism of the petitioner was given by him. The next case that has been relied upon by the learned counsel is a Single Bench decision in Madhura Krishnamurthy Sastri v. Yerra Ramamurthy. Here also the facts were wholly different. In fact while referring to the provisions of rule 3. Order 33, the learned Judge has in clear terms said that the object of this provision is to enable the Court to examine the petitioner with a view to satisfy itself prima facie that the applicant is really a pauper and that the application is not liable to rejection on any of the grounds mentioned in rule 3. The petitioner in the present case did not at all appear in the Court of competent jurisdiction when the appeal was filed before the learned Judicial Commissioner with the result that requisites of R. 5 were not at all complied with. ( 7 ) PROVISIONS of rule 5, Order 33, are mendatory and where it is found that the petition has not been presented is the manner prescribed by rule 3, the Court has no option but to reject the same. ( 8 ) IN view of the above findings I have no other alternative but to reject this petition as having not been properly presented. Parties are, however, left to bear their own cost.