JUDGMENT : 1. The permission to sue as an indigent person in a suit for recovery of possession on title has been granted by the Court below by the order impugned. The first respondent has candidly admitted in evidence that she is residing with her husband and depending on him. The Court below has come to a finding of fact that her husband has a two storied building with articles including television and fridge. The husband is a retired school teacher receiving pension and has also a motor bike. 2. The oral evidence also reveals that the husband of the first respondent sold a property two years ago and received Rs.23 Lakhs as consideration. But there is no proof that the entire amount has been spent away for their daughter’s marriage. The Supreme Court in Mathai M. Paikeday v. C.K. Anthony (2011 SAR (Civil) 614) has followed the following passage found in American Jurisprudence:- “Where two people are living together and functioning as a single economic unit, whether married, related, or otherwise, consideration of their combined financial assets may be warranted for the purposes determining a party’s indigency status in a civil proceeding.” 3. The combined financial asset of the first respondent and her husband compels me to hold that she is not indigent and not unable to pay the court fee. The Court fee payable is not very onerous and comes to Rs.33,000/- only. I set aside the impugned order and dismiss Indigent O.P. No. 1/2013 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thodupuzha. I however grant the first respondent a period of two months from today to pay the Court fee for the suit to be processed. The Original Petition is allowed. No costs.