JUDGMENT A.P. Misra, J. - Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. It has been urged that the trial court committed an error in permitting the opposite party to file the suit as indigent person. The main ground of attack is that the trial court has not taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 10,650 paid to the opposite party towards her maintenance. It has been urged that it would not be "property" falling under the bracketed portion of Clause (a) of Explanation I of Order XXXIII Rule 1, CPC. 2. The bracketed portion of the aforesaid clause deals that in considering a person whether he is indigent person or not, the Court shall not take into consideration the properties exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit. It was alleged that the property, which are exempt from attachment is referred to in Section 60, CPC and reliance has been placed on Sub-clause (a) of the said Section wherein future maintenance is referred. It is on this an argument has been raised that since is not the future maintenance, therefore, the amount which has been paid towards maintenance would not be covered u/s 60 CPC. 3. The argument raised by the Learned Counsel for the applicant is not acceptable Order XXXIII Rule 1, (The bracketed portion of Explanation I, Clause (a)) only speaks about the property not liable to be considered while considering the sufficient means of a person, whether he is indigent person or not. But that does not exclude the court from considering on the facts and circumstances of the case whether other material evidence the said person was possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee or not. In the present case, the only means possessed by and urged by the applicant was the maintenance amount, which has been paid by the husband applicant to the wife to show sufficiency. The court fee to be paid by the wife as per applicant was Rs. 6,707.50 p. 4. The aforesaid maintenance amount was in a proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and is for the bare maintenance of the women i.e. for her bread and butter. That amount may be for the past period. She must have incurred expenses for that by taking loan or expenses may yet to be liquidated. 6,707.50 p. 4. The aforesaid maintenance amount was in a proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and is for the bare maintenance of the women i.e. for her bread and butter. That amount may be for the past period. She must have incurred expenses for that by taking loan or expenses may yet to be liquidated. It would not be right to treat such to be the property or substantial money with the applicant for the purpose of paying the court fee. In the present case, the court having not taken that amount into consideration for declaring respondent to be indigent person could not be said to be such as to have committed any illegality or jurisdictional error which calls for interference by this Court in the present proceedings. 5. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 6. A copy of this judgment shall issue to the Learned Counsel within a week on payment of usual charges.