Jaswinder Kaur Vs. Gurdip Singh

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of.....orderr.l. anand, j.1. smt. jaswinder kaur, the present appellant filed a petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act in the court of addl. district judge, patiala, against her husband shri gurdip singh on the ground of cruelty and desertion. the petition was resisted by the husband. the trial court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.2.1998 dismissed the petition. aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, smt. jaswinder filed by present appeal. notice of the appeal was given to respondent shri gurdip singh.2. during the pendency of the appeal smt. jaswinder kaur, appellant, has remarried with shri gurbhej singh of village dhanmeri, tehsil samrala, district patiala. out of this wedlock, a male child has been born to smt. jaswinder kaur.3. from the marriage of the appellant with shri gurdip singh, respondent, one female child by the name of miss mandeep kaur was born. she, at the moment is in the custody of the appellant. she is aged about ten years. she is a student of 6th class and is present in court.4. i have enquired from miss mandeep kaur about her wish, whether she wants to go to the house of her father shri gurdip singh and she says that she wants to live with her father because her mother smt. jaswinder kaur has re-married with shri gurbhej singh.5. the parties filed a joint petition under section 13b of the hindu marriage act keeping in view the changed circumstances. smt. jaswinder kaur has remarried with shri gurbhej singh when her first marriage with shri gurdip singh was valid and subsisting. perhaps she has committed this offence under a wrong advice. since the life of a lady is involved in this case, therefore, i entertain this petition under section 13b of the hindu marriage act in the high court. moreover shri gurdip singh, respondent, is not ready to accept the appellant in view of her re-marriage with gurbhej singh but definitely, he is interested to keep the custody of his own daughter miss mandeep kaur.6. i have.....