V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,31,504/- towards damages. On the said (sic) she is required to pay Court fee of Rs. 1,48,000/ -. However, she filed a miscellaneous petition seeking to prosecute the suit as an indigent person. According to the petitioner, she has no source of income as her husband is a retired Government servant and the two properties she owns are under litigation. The Miscellaneous petition was resisted by the defendants by raising various objections and seeking dismissal of the same. To prove that petitioner is an indigent person, she got examined her husband as PW-1. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition by its order dated 21-1-2000 challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed I. A. I. to implead the Government Advocate and the same was allowed vide order dated 10-8-2000. But, the counsel for the petitioner has not chosen to amend the cause title. In the application except mentioning Government Advocate, address is not mentioned. It is a lapse on the part of the advocate. Be that as it may. ( 3 ) I have perused the impugned order. It reveals that the husband of the petitioner is a practicing Advocate. Curiously, I verified the address of the petitioner and the address of her counsel on the Vakalathnama. both address are one and the same. That means, the Advocate representing the petitioner is none other than her own Advocate. This belies her statement that he is a retired Government servant. He might be a Government servant earlier. After taking voluntary retirement, he is practicing Advocate. Apart from the income from his practice, he is getting pension and may be other income out of the amount of his voluntary retirement benefits. Hence the say of the petitioner that she has no source to pay the Court fee, cannot be accepted. ( 4 ) THE petitioner is residing with her children. One of the son is doing transport business. Another son of the petitioner is an Architect and is working in a company. The trial Court considered these aspects also while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner is residing with her children. One of the son is doing transport business. Another son of the petitioner is an Architect and is working in a company. The trial Court considered these aspects also while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is also seen that petitioner owns 10 acres of land and the value of one acre is Rs. 3,00,000/ -. This is admitted by the petitioner herself in another case in P. Misc. Nos. 138 and 139/1990 in CCCH No. 18. That apart, petitioner is also Director of the 2nd respondent company having 120 shares with face value of Rs. 100/- each. The petitioner has also floated a company of her own under the name and style of M/s. Padmini Garden Resources India (P) Ltd. , and she is the Managing Director of the same. The petitioner being such a dynamic person with so much of wealth and resources, is attempting to evade payment of Court fee on the claim made in the suit. One can easily say that a person claiming mere damages of 29 lakhs is wealthiest person. An ordinary or middle-class person certainly cannot make business or transactions in lakhs. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the miscellaneous petition of the petitioner and this Court declines to interfere with the same. If the petitioner want to prosecute the suit, she has to pay the requisite Court fee or else withdraw the suit. She cannot make such frivolous attempts by suppressing true facts to misuse the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure meant for poor and insolvent persons. Really it is an abuse of the process of law, for which the petitioner has to be punished. But, considering the fact that she is a woman, this Court does not wish to precipitate the matter. ( 6 ) IN the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .