Judgment :- 1. Being aggrieved by allowing of petition – O.P.No.4 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif, Pollachi, filed under Order 33 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and permitting the minor 1st respondent to sue as an indigent person to claim maintenance, revision petitioner has preferred this revision. 2. Case of 1st respondent/plaintiff is that he is an illegitimate son of revision petitioner. Claiming that revision petitioner is bound to maintain him, 1st respondent - minor filed the suit claiming past maintenance of Rs.36,000/- from 15.9.1999 to 15.09.2002 and thereafter a sum of Rs.12,000/- for one year at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and other reliefs. Suit was filed by minor 1st respondent/ minor through his mother/guardian and next friend. Contending that he is entitled to be maintained by the revision petitioner. The suit was valued at Rs.48,000/- and court fee payable comes to Rs.3,601/-. Stating that he has no means to pay the court fee and that he does not own any movable or immovable properties, 1st respondent/ minor filed O.P.No.4 of 2004 under Order 33 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to permit him to sue as an indigent person. 3. Contending that the 1st respondent/ minor is not the illegitimate child of the revision petitioner and that revision petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance amount to the 1st respondent - minor, revision petitioner contested the petition. It was further averred that maintenance petition filed by the 1st respondent – minor under Section 125 Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed and only thereafter the 1st respondent – minor has come forward with frivolous suit and petition. The mother of 1st respondent/ minor is healthy and is having means to pay the court fee. 4. In the trial Court, minor - 1st respondent's mother- Radhamani was examined as P.W.1 and revision petitioner was examined as R.W.1. The copy of Order in Crl.R.C.No.642 of 2001 was marked as Ex.B.1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that the 1st respondent/ minor has no sufficient means to pay the court fee and permitted the 1st respondent to file the suit as an indigent person. 5. Challenging the impugned order, revision petitioner has preferred this revision. The copy of Order in Crl.R.C.No.642 of 2001 was marked as Ex.B.1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that the 1st respondent/ minor has no sufficient means to pay the court fee and permitted the 1st respondent to file the suit as an indigent person. 5. Challenging the impugned order, revision petitioner has preferred this revision. Though the second batta was due in respect of 1st respondent, since revision petition is pending from 2010, notwithstanding the non-service of notice to the 1st respondent, revision was taken up for final disposal. 6. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that the 1st respondent is living along with his mother and his mother is possessing three cows and doing milk vending business and that apart she is also working in agricultural fields and earning sufficiently and thus the 1st respondent is possessing sufficient means to pay the court fee. It was further submitted that the Court below was not right in relying upon the decision reported in AIR 2005 RAJASTHAN 32 (Smt.Manjulata Vs. Sidhkaran), and the said mistake had vitiated its findings. 7. Contention of revision petitioner is that mother of 1st respondent is having three milch cows and that she is vending milk and that apart she is also working in agricultural fields and having sufficient means to pay the court fee. On behalf of 1st respondent/ minor, the next friend of minor, who is not himself a pauper, may sue informa pauperis on behalf of a minor pauper. Question is, whether respondent/minor petitioner is a pauper or not. Whether mother of respondent has means or not is irrelevant. We are not concerned with the means of his mother. The minor/ 1st respondent has filed suit claiming maintenance of Rs.1,000/-per month. Dismissal of maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. cannot be an impediment for the minor/ 1st respondent to file the suit claiming maintenance. Nothing was brought on record to show that the minor 1st respondent has any means to pay the court fee. In the absence of any evidence brought on record, learned District Munsif, Pollachi rightly permitted the 1st respondent to file a suit as an indigent person and the impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference in the impugned order. 8. In the absence of any evidence brought on record, learned District Munsif, Pollachi rightly permitted the 1st respondent to file a suit as an indigent person and the impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference in the impugned order. 8. When the Court was about the pass the order, it was also informed that the suit was already numbered and taken on file. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the District Munsif, Pollachi is directed to take up the Suit at an early date and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. However, there is no order as to costs.