Kulwant Sahay, J.This is a very unfortunate case. The petitioner is the wife of defendant 1 both of whom are fairly advanced in age. The case of the petitioner is that she was turned out from the house of her husband and she loft the house with a pair of saris only. She brought the suit for maintenance claiming Rs. 150 a month with arrears for two months and for recovery of possession of her ornaments and jewellery and she further wants a house for her residence. She stated that she had no property in her possession and that whatever property she had she left in the house of her husband when she left the house.

2. She therefore made an application for leave to sue as a pauper, and in her application she gave a schedule of the properties which according to her were valued at Rs. 72-8-0. The court-fee payable upon her plaint is more than Rs. 1,200. Her authorized agent was examined by the Court under Order 33, Rule 4. The Court thereafter issued notice under Order 33, Rule 6 which evidently shows that it was satisfied that there was no ground for rejecting the application under Rule 5. The Government Pleader after enquiry reported that the petitioner was a pauper. Defendant 1 however filed an objection at a late stage stating that the petitioner had ornaments and jewellery worth about Rs. 5,000 and had got other articles which were sufficient to pay the court-fee. The petitioner was then examined in Court. She denied her having ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 5,000.

3. In her plaint she had claimed ornaments worth Rs. 3,000 as having been taken away by the husband; but in the course of her cross-examination she stated that she had got four or five petis (boxes) whereas in her schedule she had shown that she had only two trunks. Again in her evidence she mentioned that she had four or five chaukis whereas in her schedule she bad stated that she had only two chaukis.

4. In her evidence she further stated that she had two almirahs whereas in the schedule only one almirah was mentioned. The learned Subordinate Judge notices the discrepancies in respect of these three items, namely, the trunks, the chaukis and the almirahs. He then refers to the observations of this Court in the case of Durga Prasad and Another Vs. Sriniwas Sureka and Another, and he thinks that according to the view expressed by this Court in that case he was bound to reject the application on the ground that the petitioner had not set forth her assets with the utmost good faith in her application for leave to sue as a pauper. He has not considered the case on merits and he does not find that the petitioner is not a pauper and that she is in a position to pay the court-fee.

5. Now, the case relied upon by the learned Subordinate Judge was a wholly different case. There certain immovable properties were left out and the equity of redemption which the petitioner had in that case and which was said to be very valuable was also omitted, and this Court was evidently of opinion in the application which they were considering, namely an application for leave to appeal as a pauper in this Court, that there had not been a bona fide disclosure of all the assets which the alleged pauper had. Their Lordships refer to the fact that the petitioner in that case had interest in certain immovable properties which he had failed to set forth in his application to this Court and their Lordships observed that it is most important that all applications for leave to sue or prefer appeals in forma pauperis should set forth with the utmost good faith, as in the disclosure of assets in insolvency proceedings, the whole of the assets of the applicant. Their Lordspips further observed that it must be understood in future that if it should be revealed in the course of the hearing of the application that the applicant has not stated with utmost good faith the whole of his assets, the application will be rejected at the very earliest stage.

6. The learned Subordinate Judge has wholly misapprehended the observations of this Court referred to by me. It was never the intention of this Court to lay it down that if one or two wooden chaukis or if a wooden box or a wooden almirah worth a few rupees be left out such an omission will have the effect of rejecting the application without determination on merits. It must be found that there was a male fide omission from the schedule of properties which would materially affect the question of pauperism. As I understand it the object of prescribing that the pauper should set out a list of his properties is to help the Government in ascertaining whether the applicant is in a position to pay. the court-fee payable on the plaint. It cannot be said that the omission of a few articles worth a few rupees which could in no way affect the decision of the Court on the question of pauperism has the effect of throwing out the application on the ground that it does not contain a list of all the properties held by the petitioner. I am of opinion that there is nothing to show that the omission in the present case of the two trunks or the chaukis and the almirah was an act of bad faith on the part of the petitioner.

7. It is rather difficult to say how the petitioner would have been benefited by a deliberate omission of these articles. She had left the house and was living in another place and she had given a list of the articles which she believed belonged to her, although most of these articles appear to belong to her husband, as in a Hindu family it is difficult to say that a bed upon which the Hindu wife sleeps is her own exclusive property and not the property of the husband.

8. However having regard to the circumstances of the present case, I am of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in rejecting it on the ground that the application did not comply with the law for the reasons stated by him. He must decide the case on merits and find whether or not the petitioner is a pauper and whether leave should be given to her to sue as a pauper. The order is therefore set aside and the case remanded to him for disposal according to the observations made above. The petitioner is entitled to her costs in this Court hearing fee three gold mohurs.