JUDGMENT N. N. Mithal, J. - This first appeal from order is directed against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Aligarh in a suit for recovery of certain ornaments and for maintenance etc. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, who is wife of the respondent, as an indigent person but the said application has been dismissed by the learned court below. 2. The appellant was married to the respondent in the year 1959 and it is alleged that at the time of her marriage, ornaments and other articles which are mentioned in Schedule 'C' to the plaint were given to the appellant as dowry, which she had taken along with her to the respondent's house. At the time of filing of the suit, the only articles which were with the appellant were those as are disclosed in Schedule 'C' attached to the plaint. The total cost of these articles is alleged to be Rs. 468 while the court fee payable on the claim made by her is Rs. 8, 647.50. It is, therefore, alleged that she being unable to pay the requisite court fee may be permitted to file the suit as an indigent person. 3. The respondent filed an objection against this application, in which it is alleged that the applicant had concealed the properties in her possession, that she had ancestral property worth Rs. 20,000 that she is M. A., B. Ed. and was earning by giving tuition at her house and she has still gold ornaments in her possession. 4. The parties examined themselves in support of their respective cases. In her statement, the plaintiff clearly stated that she was unable to pay the court fee as she had no property or ornaments of money etc. The ornaments in her possession were those which she disclosed (Nose ring and earring) in Schedule 'C'. In cross-examination she has stated that at the time of returning from her husband's house, she had 15 Tolas of ornaments with her but these ornaments were no longer with her. The ornaments in her possession were those which she disclosed (Nose ring and earring) in Schedule 'C'. In cross-examination she has stated that at the time of returning from her husband's house, she had 15 Tolas of ornaments with her but these ornaments were no longer with her. The respondent, on the other hand, stated that in them community the entire ornaments are gifted from the groom's side but in examination-in-chief he has further stated that the appellant had come with 80 Tolas of gold ornaments but it has not been stated that these ornaments were those which were gifted from respondent's side or were gifted by the appellant's side. He has also stated that no ornaments were at all gifted from the wife's side. 5. On the material on record, the court below while recording its findings has disbelieved the plaintiff merely on the ground that respondent had not been cross-examined regarding 80 Tolas of ornaments with her, when she left his house. This finding is based on misreading of the evidence. Respondent's statement in this respect is ambiguous and can also be read to mean that she had brought 80 Tolas of ornaments with her. The respondent has nowhere stated clearly that ornaments worth 80 Tolas had been gifted from the groom's side and she was wearing then when she came back from respondent's house. It is true that the appellant has admitted that she had 15 Tolas of ornaments with her when she came back from her husband's place. However, there was no cross-examination as to what those ornaments were. Whether those were made of silver or gold or what happened to their later on. This is also not clear if those were still with her upto the time of filing of the suit. The appellant has very clearly stated that she had no ornaments or property with her except those mentioned in schedule 'C' of the plaint. There is no denial of the same from the side of the respondent. Even the written objection filed by him is vague. There is nothing those ornaments. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the finding recorded by the court below and we hold the appellant as an indigent person and she ought to have been allowed to sue as an indigent person. 6. Even the written objection filed by him is vague. There is nothing those ornaments. In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the finding recorded by the court below and we hold the appellant as an indigent person and she ought to have been allowed to sue as an indigent person. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the court below dated 24-5-78 is set aside. The appellant is permitted to sue as an indigent person. However, there will be no order as to costs.