Sushila Vs. Om Parkash - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - that the husband tried to rehabilitate the wife in the matrimonial home but without success, and that the wife has been causing mental torture to the husband. the wife denied the allegations in the petition and, inter alia, pleaded that the husband and the family members were not satisfied with the dowry and that they demanded a sum of rs. 45,000/- that the husband and his family members had become rich and they were discarding her because she was not beautiful. the wife had no grouse against the husband except that he was not satisfied since she was not beautiful. she did not complain that the husband or the family members ever maltreated her. 2 and stated that the wife on one occasion bad sprinkled kerosene oil on her clothes in his presence; the wife's assertion in her written statement that the husband was not satisfied with the dowry and made a demand of rs. to the contrary, the insinuation is false, because as per the wife's own showing the husband is fairly prosperous, moreover, the wife's father had been writing letters to her daughter in which he wrote that the husband was of sterling character and possessed good qualities.g.r. majithia, j.1. the wife has come up in appeal against the judgment of the matrimonial court, whereby the petition of the husband under section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was allowed. 2. the fact :- the marriage between the parties was solemnised on february 18, 1976 at village sardulshahr, district ganganagar; that out of this wedlock one son, namely, natish (6 years) and daughter namely, neetu (aged 8 years) were born; that the wife tried to commit suicide by consuming tablets of campose in 1986; that once she tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her clothes and set them on fire; that she wrote a letter to the editor of nabhhchhor that the news of her missing or death might not be considered a hoax that the wife left her matrimonial home; that the husband tried to rehabilitate the wife in the matrimonial home but without success, and that the wife has been causing mental torture to the husband. the wife denied the allegations in the petition and, inter alia, pleaded that the husband and the family members were not satisfied with the dowry and that they demanded a sum of rs. 50.000/- and the wife's parents had paid an amount of rs. 45,000/- that the husband and his family members had become rich and they were discarding her because she was not beautiful. 3. the pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :- (1) whether the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty at alleged opp. (2) relief. issue no. 1 was decided in favour of the husband and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. 4. at the time of hearing of the appeal, i tried to bring about reconciliation between the parties, but the efforts proved abortive. the wife had no grouse against the husband except that he was not satisfied since she was not beautiful. she did not complain that the husband or the family members ever maltreated her. from the brief talk which i had with the wife i inferred that she was suffering from fear psychosis and the same cannot be attributed to the husband but to her own mental make-up and the circumstances in which she was brought up in her parents' home. the husband was reluctant to rehabilitate the wife at this stage for the reason that she had suicidal tendencies and if she ever succeeds in her attempt to commit suicide, he and his family members would be involved in serious criminal litigation. 5. the medical evidence brought on record by the husband lends credence to the husband's version. dr. m.r. sapra, sapra hospital. hisar appeared as p.w. 1 and stated that on october 31, 1985, the wife was brought to his hospital by her husband om parkash and other relations in a state of comma; that stomach wash was done and some powdery material was taken out from her stomach; that it was powder of some sedative pills; that the wife contested before him that she was mentally perturbed and wanted to commit suicide. p.w. 3 dr. rajinder singh lamba, who was posted at civil hospital, hisar, on march 16, 1985, stated that the wife remained admitted in the hospital from march 16, 1985 to april 2, 1985 for treatment of abnormal behaviour and that on examination he found that she was obstinate, rigid and was suffering from acute psychosis. the husband appeared as p.w. 2 and stated that the wife on one occasion bad sprinkled kerosene oil on her clothes in his presence; that he overpowered her and did not permit her to set herself on fire; that on other occasion, she consumed ubiets for comnoiuing suicide and she was taken to the hospital. the husband's version in the examination-in chief regarding sprinkling of kerosene oil by the wife on her clothes and taking sedatives for attempting to commit suicide was not challenged in cross-examination. his statement that the conduct of the wife caused him mental torture deserves to be accepted. the wife caused mental torture to the husband by making allegation that the latter demanded dowry from her inasmuch as he asked her to bring a sum of rs. 50,000/- from her parents. this insinuation, on scrutiny of the evidence, appears to be false. the wife's assertion in her written statement that the husband was not satisfied with the dowry and made a demand of rs. 50.000/-appears to be false. this part of the story was not put to the husband when he appeared in the witness-box. to the contrary, the insinuation is false, because as per the wife's own showing the husband is fairly prosperous, moreover, the wife's father had been writing letters to her daughter in which he wrote that the husband was of sterling character and possessed good qualities. in none of these letters, he ever mentioned that the husband had made a demand for an amount of rs. 50.000/- from the wife. 6. the conclusions arrived at by the matrimonial court on appreciation of evidence that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty inasmuch as she tried to commit suicide in 1985 and also wrote a letter to the editor of nabhhchhor that the news of her missing or death be not considered as casual and she threatened to commit suicide and if she had succeeded, the husband's family would have been involved in serious criminal cases, have not been suggested to be incorrect. the findings of the matrimonial court under issue no. 1 are affirmed. the appeal is bereft of any merit. 7. for the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. before i part with this judgment, it will be desirable to fix permanent alimony for the wife. the wife moved civil misc. no. i1-m of 1991 under section 24 of the hindu marriage act for grant of maintenance pendente life and litigation expenses, but her counsel at the hearing stated that in the event, the appeal is dismissed, then she may be granted permanent alimony. from the wedlock, a daughter and son, aged 8 and 6 years respectively were born. both are grown up. the husband has agreed to get them admitted in renowned public school where boarding facilities are available and for that i will be passing an order while disposing of fao no. 1224 of 1991. the husband will educate and maintain the children according to his family's status. the wife is entitled to permanent alimony and, keeping in view the material placed on record, i direct the husband to pay rs. 750/- per mensum to the wife as permanent alimony till her death or remarriage, whichever occurs earlier. the maintenance will be payable from the date of this judgment, civil misc. is disposed of accordingly. 8. so far as the litigation expenses are concerned, on december 2, 1991, the date when the case was argued, with the consent of the parties and their counsel, a sum of rs. 2,000/-in lump sum was ordered to be paid by the husband to the wife towards litigation expenses. the husband paid and the wife accepted the said amount. as regards interim maintenance, this prayer has become infructuous as the wife has been granted permanent alimony.