Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 26.02.2008 passed by the learned Family Court Judge at Pondicherry, in P.O.P.No.223 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The first respondent/petitioner filed the P.O.P.No.223 of 2005 in the Family Court, Pondicherry seeking permission to file the suit informa pauperism as against her husband claiming the following reliefs: "(a) to declare that the petitioner is an indigent person; .(b) to direct the defendant to pay 1/3 of the monthly pension i.e. Rs.1,28,736/- received by the defendant for the monthly maintenance of the plaintiff and her son Magesh, .(c) to award cost of the suit and .(d) to pass other necessary orders in the interest of justice." 4. Notice to Government was also ordered. After hearing both sides, the Court below granted permission to the wife to sue informa pauperism, whereupon this revision is focussed on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the lower Court has not considered the case in detail and simply out of sympathy granted permission to the first respondent/ petitioner/plaintiff to file the suit informa pauperis. 6. Whereas the learned counsel for the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff would submit that by no stretch of imagination, any man having head over shoulder would expect a wife reeling under cash strapped, penurious and impecunious circumstances to pay a huge sum of rupees thirty thousand and odd as court fees and claim maintenance. 7. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff that no Court could direct a lady who is seeking maintenance from her husband to pay such a huge court fee and that too when there is no iota or shred of evidence to display and demonstrate that she is having sufficient funds to pay the court fee. 8. A bare perusal of the lower Court order would clearly evince and exemplify that the said decision was arrived at after analyzing in detail the income of the wife and as such, the order of the lower Court warrants no interference. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. 8. A bare perusal of the lower Court order would clearly evince and exemplify that the said decision was arrived at after analyzing in detail the income of the wife and as such, the order of the lower Court warrants no interference. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. The learned counsel for the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff would make an extempore submission to the effect that a direction may be given to the lower court for early disposal. I could see considerable force in his submission. Accordingly, the Family Court, Pondicherry is directed to dispose of M.O.P.No.126 of 2006 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.