S. Abdul Rasheed Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and anr.

matrimonial case--divorce proceedings--appeal--conduct of--wife--if entitled to advance payment of money.; in a matrimonial case, a wife is not entitled to be granted in advance moneys to defray the expenses of conducting the appeal filed either by herself or by her husband. the rule that obtains to a matrimonial suit does not apply to an appeal against the decree in such a suit. when a wife is not entitled as of right even to an order for security for costs of the appeal in the absence of special grounds, it follows that she is certainly not entitled as of right to obtain an order for payment of money in advance to defray her expenses for the conduct of the appeal.; debnam v. debnam i.l.r. [1950] mad. 159 followed.; petition praying that the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the high court will be pleased to direct the respondent herein to pay a reasonable amount to he petitioner herein either in a lump sum or in instalments, to enable the petitioner to defend the appeal and applications and make such payment a condition for the respondent for prosecuting the appeal and the connected applications in original side appeal no. 66 of 1958, preferred to the high court under section 55 of the indian divorce act, and order xxxvi, rule 1 of the original side rules and clause 15 of the letters patent against the judgment and decree of subrahmanyam j., dated 28th october 1958, and made in exercise of the original matrimonial jurisdiction of this court in original matrimonial suit no. 9 of 1957.; v. rajagopalachari for t. ramaprasada rao for the petitioner.; s. govind swaminathan for the respondent. - - .....the state transport tribunal. the state transport appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was presented beyond time. the present petition has been filed for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the state transport appellate tribunal.2. rule 147 (1) of the rules framed under the motor vehicles act so far as it is here relevant runs as follows :"an appeal under sub-section (1) of section 64 of the act shall, lie to the state transport appellate tribunal within 30 days of the date of the receipt of the order appealed against."admittedly the order of the secretary, regional transport authority, reached the petitioner on 30-8- 1958. the appeal should have been presented to the state transport appellate tribunal on or before 29-9-1958. on that day the petitioner sent the memorandum of appeal by registered post from vellore head post office and it reached the state transport appellate tribunal on 30-9-1958, that is to say, one day late. the argument of mr. ramamurthi was that when he dispatched his appeal memorandum on 29-9-1958 by registered post from vellore post office he must be deemed to nave presented the application within the 30 days provided for by the rule. now if we can regard the post office as an agent of the state transport appellate tribunal the argument would have been sound--and it is exactly this that mr. ramamurthi invites me to say. but he did not explain by what legal process the post office was constituted as the agent of the state transport appellate tribunal. i can discover no rule of law which makes the post office the agent of the state trans port appellate tribunal for the receipt of appeal petition. the conclusion of the tribunal that the appeal was presented out of time is correct. this writ petition is therefore dismissed.3. petition dismissed.