S. VENKATARAMAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the petitioner. ( 2 ) AS both the parties are represented by advocates, the matter is taken up for final disposal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Advocate who has been notified has not filed any objections. ( 4 ) THIS appeal is filed by the petitioner in P. Mis. No. 8 of 1987 on the file of the court of the Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Bangalore against her order, dated 5-3-1992 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for permission to file a suit as an indigent person. ( 5 ) THE only ground on which the lower court has rejected appellant's application is that she had received a sum of Rs. 8,000 towards maintenance in an execution case and Rs, 10,000/- towards cost of an appeal preferred by her against her husband and that she could therefore pay the court fee. ( 6 ) IT is undisputed that the sum of Rs. 8. 000/- was recovered by the appellant being arrears of maintenance after executing an order passed in her favour. The maintenance amount is awarded mainly for the sustenance of the'appellant and that cannot be taken into account for determining the capacity of the appellant to pay the court fee. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in Gurueharan Singh v sukhvinder Singh. In that case also, the petitioner has got a sum of Rs. 700/- towards arrears of maintenance and the question was whether that amount should be taken into account while determining the question whether the appellant had means to pay the court fee. The Punjab and Haryana Court has held that merely because the petitioner has got arrears of maintenance, she could not be dispaupered. That apart, under section 60 (n), CPC, future maintenance is exempted from attachment. The mere fact that the maintenance is received in a lumpsum as arrears does not make it liable for attachment. ( 7 ) WITH regard to the other sum, admittedly, that amount has been awarded by the court to meet the expenses of the litigation in the other case, that cannot be taken into account for finding out whether the petitioner has means to pay the court fee in this suit. ( 7 ) WITH regard to the other sum, admittedly, that amount has been awarded by the court to meet the expenses of the litigation in the other case, that cannot be taken into account for finding out whether the petitioner has means to pay the court fee in this suit. The learned Family Court Judge has not taken into consideration this aspect and has rejected the petition mainly on the ground that the appellant has received these two sums of money. We are unable to agree with that finding. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons, this appeal is allowed and the order of the lower court is set aside. ( 9 ) THE application of the appellant in the lower court is allowed and she is permitted to file the suit as an indigent person. The lower court shall register the plaint and proceed further. --- *** --- .