Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Pritam Kaur Vs. Gurbachan Singh
Decided On : Oct-15-1992
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Pritam Kaur Vs. Gurbachan Singh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 13', (int) 1 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Amarjeet Chaudhary', (int) 1 => 'the Court of Shri K.C. Gupta', (int) 2 => 'Kalka', (int) 3 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 4 => 'PW-2', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Court' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'RW-2', (int) 2 => 'RW-2', (int) 3 => 'RW-2' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Pritam Kaur', (int) 1 => 'Ambala', (int) 2 => 'Sikh', (int) 3 => 'Badhawa Singh', (int) 4 => 'Sonia', (int) 5 => 'Sonia', (int) 6 => 'Sonia', (int) 7 => 'Sonia', (int) 8 => 'Exhibits A-2' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1955', (int) 1 => '29.11.1988', (int) 2 => 'November, 1987', (int) 3 => 'a few days', (int) 4 => 'November, 1987' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Additional District' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Gurbachan Singh respondent.2' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '4.5.1975', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'one' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'affairs.10' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '619373', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> - Sections 13', 'appealno' => 'First Appeal from Order No. 121-M of 1989', 'appellant' => 'Pritam Kaur', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Pritam Kaur Vs. Gurbachan Singh', 'casenote' => ' - 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. - No child would like to depose against his/her parents. It is a matter of common knowledge that a child has equal love and affection for the parent A child speaks against his mother only if he rinds that the attitude of his mother is offensive against his father. The appellant has not even bothered for her children who are of tender age and are in need of mother's care, love and affection which has been deprived to them by the appellant. 9. On the consideration of the matter, this Court has reached the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that she was subjected to any cruelty by her husband, rather it is the appellant who is responsible for her own sorry state of affairs.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' K.S. Sidhu, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' K.K. Aggarwal, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1992-10-15', 'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Smt. Pritam Kaur, appellant, had filed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce Section 13 of the <a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> in the Court of Shri K.C. Gupta, Additional District. Judge, Ambala, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 29.11.1988. She had sought, divorce on the ground of cruelty at the hands of her husband Gurbachan Singh respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts regarding solemnisation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on 4.5.1975 according to Sikh rites at Kalka and birth of three daughters besides one son out of their wed-lock are not in dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Court :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to prove her case, the appellant examined PW-1 Badhawa Singh besides her own statement as PW-2. On the other hand, respondent while appearing as PW-1 denied the allegations and examined his daughter Ms. Sonia as RW-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sonia while appearing as RW-2, who happens to be daughter of the parties, was categoric in saying that her father never quarrelled with her mother. As per this witness, her mother never wanted to keep them on the pretext that she was in service. It is revealed from the statement of this witness that whenever she alongwith her brother and sisters want to see their mother, they were given bearing by her mother and were told to go to the house of their father, it has also come in her statement that whenever the children went to the house of the appellant alongwith their father, she got the respondent arrested in cases. She had denied in clear terms that her father had ever made any attempt to kill her mother with a sword. Taking into consideration the statement of this witness, I am of the considered view that Sonia. (RW-2) has narrated the true facts and her statement cannot be treated as concocted or unworthy of credence. No child would like to depose against his/her parents. It is only under the compelling circumstances that a child has to speak against the patents. It is a matter of common knowledge that a child has equal love and affection for the parent A child speaks against his mother only if he rinds that the attitude of his mother is offensive against his father. Thus, I am of the view that Sonia while appearing as RW-2 must have narrated the true facts and as such there is no reason to disbelieve her statement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has also come into the evidence of the appellant that she had lived with her husband till November, 1987 i.e. a few days prior to the filing of the divorce petition and had performed marital obligations. Even if for argument sake, it is assumed that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty, but the same is deemed to have been condoned by the appellant as she had lived with her husband till November, 1987. The documents Exhibits A-2 and A-6 relate to the period after the institution of the divorce petition. The complaints filed by the appellant appear to have been filed in order to create evidence against the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. On a Court query, the appellant, who was present in the Court, refused to reconcile with the respondent. The appellant has adopted a very stiff attitude and is not ready to compromise with her husband. The appellant has not even bothered for her children who are of tender age and are in need of mother's care, love and affection which has been deprived to them by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the consideration of the matter, this Court has reached the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that she was subjected to any cruelty by her husband, rather it is the appellant who is responsible for her own sorry state of affairs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'I(1994)DMC452', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Gurbachan Singh', 'sub' => 'Family', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '619373' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Pritam Kaur Vs. Gurbachan Singh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 13', (int) 1 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Amarjeet Chaudhary', (int) 1 => 'the Court of Shri K.C. Gupta', (int) 2 => 'Kalka', (int) 3 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 4 => 'PW-2', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Court' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'RW-2', (int) 2 => 'RW-2', (int) 3 => 'RW-2' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Pritam Kaur', (int) 1 => 'Ambala', (int) 2 => 'Sikh', (int) 3 => 'Badhawa Singh', (int) 4 => 'Sonia', (int) 5 => 'Sonia', (int) 6 => 'Sonia', (int) 7 => 'Sonia', (int) 8 => 'Exhibits A-2' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1955', (int) 1 => '29.11.1988', (int) 2 => 'November, 1987', (int) 3 => 'a few days', (int) 4 => 'November, 1987' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Additional District' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Gurbachan Singh respondent.2' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '4.5.1975', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'one' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'affairs.10' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '619373', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> - Sections 13', 'appealno' => 'First Appeal from Order No. 121-M of 1989', 'appellant' => 'Pritam Kaur', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Pritam Kaur Vs. Gurbachan Singh', 'casenote' => ' - 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. - No child would like to depose against his/her parents. It is a matter of common knowledge that a child has equal love and affection for the parent A child speaks against his mother only if he rinds that the attitude of his mother is offensive against his father. The appellant has not even bothered for her children who are of tender age and are in need of mother's care, love and affection which has been deprived to them by the appellant. 9. On the consideration of the matter, this Court has reached the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that she was subjected to any cruelty by her husband, rather it is the appellant who is responsible for her own sorry state of affairs.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' K.S. Sidhu, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' K.K. Aggarwal, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1992-10-15', 'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Smt. Pritam Kaur, appellant, had filed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce Section 13 of the <a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> in the Court of Shri K.C. Gupta, Additional District. Judge, Ambala, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 29.11.1988. She had sought, divorce on the ground of cruelty at the hands of her husband Gurbachan Singh respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts regarding solemnisation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on 4.5.1975 according to Sikh rites at Kalka and birth of three daughters besides one son out of their wed-lock are not in dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Court :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to prove her case, the appellant examined PW-1 Badhawa Singh besides her own statement as PW-2. On the other hand, respondent while appearing as PW-1 denied the allegations and examined his daughter Ms. Sonia as RW-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sonia while appearing as RW-2, who happens to be daughter of the parties, was categoric in saying that her father never quarrelled with her mother. As per this witness, her mother never wanted to keep them on the pretext that she was in service. It is revealed from the statement of this witness that whenever she alongwith her brother and sisters want to see their mother, they were given bearing by her mother and were told to go to the house of their father, it has also come in her statement that whenever the children went to the house of the appellant alongwith their father, she got the respondent arrested in cases. She had denied in clear terms that her father had ever made any attempt to kill her mother with a sword. Taking into consideration the statement of this witness, I am of the considered view that Sonia. (RW-2) has narrated the true facts and her statement cannot be treated as concocted or unworthy of credence. No child would like to depose against his/her parents. It is only under the compelling circumstances that a child has to speak against the patents. It is a matter of common knowledge that a child has equal love and affection for the parent A child speaks against his mother only if he rinds that the attitude of his mother is offensive against his father. Thus, I am of the view that Sonia while appearing as RW-2 must have narrated the true facts and as such there is no reason to disbelieve her statement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has also come into the evidence of the appellant that she had lived with her husband till November, 1987 i.e. a few days prior to the filing of the divorce petition and had performed marital obligations. Even if for argument sake, it is assumed that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty, but the same is deemed to have been condoned by the appellant as she had lived with her husband till November, 1987. The documents Exhibits A-2 and A-6 relate to the period after the institution of the divorce petition. The complaints filed by the appellant appear to have been filed in order to create evidence against the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. On a Court query, the appellant, who was present in the Court, refused to reconcile with the respondent. The appellant has adopted a very stiff attitude and is not ready to compromise with her husband. The appellant has not even bothered for her children who are of tender age and are in need of mother's care, love and affection which has been deprived to them by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the consideration of the matter, this Court has reached the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that she was subjected to any cruelty by her husband, rather it is the appellant who is responsible for her own sorry state of affairs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'I(1994)DMC452', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Gurbachan Singh', 'sub' => 'Family', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '619373' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Pritam Kaur Vs. Gurbachan Singh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 13', (int) 1 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Amarjeet Chaudhary', (int) 1 => 'the Court of Shri K.C. Gupta', (int) 2 => 'Kalka', (int) 3 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 4 => 'PW-2', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Court' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'RW-2', (int) 2 => 'RW-2', (int) 3 => 'RW-2' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Pritam Kaur', (int) 1 => 'Ambala', (int) 2 => 'Sikh', (int) 3 => 'Badhawa Singh', (int) 4 => 'Sonia', (int) 5 => 'Sonia', (int) 6 => 'Sonia', (int) 7 => 'Sonia', (int) 8 => 'Exhibits A-2' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1955', (int) 1 => '29.11.1988', (int) 2 => 'November, 1987', (int) 3 => 'a few days', (int) 4 => 'November, 1987' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Additional District' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Gurbachan Singh respondent.2' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '4.5.1975', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'one' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'affairs.10' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '619373', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> - Sections 13', 'appealno' => 'First Appeal from Order No. 121-M of 1989', 'appellant' => 'Pritam Kaur', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Pritam Kaur Vs. Gurbachan Singh', 'casenote' => ' - 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. - No child would like to depose against his/her parents. It is a matter of common knowledge that a child has equal love and affection for the parent A child speaks against his mother only if he rinds that the attitude of his mother is offensive against his father. The appellant has not even bothered for her children who are of tender age and are in need of mother's care, love and affection which has been deprived to them by the appellant. 9. On the consideration of the matter, this Court has reached the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that she was subjected to any cruelty by her husband, rather it is the appellant who is responsible for her own sorry state of affairs.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' K.S. Sidhu, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' K.K. Aggarwal, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1992-10-15', 'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Smt. Pritam Kaur, appellant, had filed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce Section 13 of the <a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> in the Court of Shri K.C. Gupta, Additional District. Judge, Ambala, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 29.11.1988. She had sought, divorce on the ground of cruelty at the hands of her husband Gurbachan Singh respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts regarding solemnisation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on 4.5.1975 according to Sikh rites at Kalka and birth of three daughters besides one son out of their wed-lock are not in dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Court :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to prove her case, the appellant examined PW-1 Badhawa Singh besides her own statement as PW-2. On the other hand, respondent while appearing as PW-1 denied the allegations and examined his daughter Ms. Sonia as RW-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sonia while appearing as RW-2, who happens to be daughter of the parties, was categoric in saying that her father never quarrelled with her mother. As per this witness, her mother never wanted to keep them on the pretext that she was in service. It is revealed from the statement of this witness that whenever she alongwith her brother and sisters want to see their mother, they were given bearing by her mother and were told to go to the house of their father, it has also come in her statement that whenever the children went to the house of the appellant alongwith their father, she got the respondent arrested in cases. She had denied in clear terms that her father had ever made any attempt to kill her mother with a sword. Taking into consideration the statement of this witness, I am of the considered view that Sonia. (RW-2) has narrated the true facts and her statement cannot be treated as concocted or unworthy of credence. No child would like to depose against his/her parents. It is only under the compelling circumstances that a child has to speak against the patents. It is a matter of common knowledge that a child has equal love and affection for the parent A child speaks against his mother only if he rinds that the attitude of his mother is offensive against his father. Thus, I am of the view that Sonia while appearing as RW-2 must have narrated the true facts and as such there is no reason to disbelieve her statement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has also come into the evidence of the appellant that she had lived with her husband till November, 1987 i.e. a few days prior to the filing of the divorce petition and had performed marital obligations. Even if for argument sake, it is assumed that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty, but the same is deemed to have been condoned by the appellant as she had lived with her husband till November, 1987. The documents Exhibits A-2 and A-6 relate to the period after the institution of the divorce petition. The complaints filed by the appellant appear to have been filed in order to create evidence against the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. On a Court query, the appellant, who was present in the Court, refused to reconcile with the respondent. The appellant has adopted a very stiff attitude and is not ready to compromise with her husband. The appellant has not even bothered for her children who are of tender age and are in need of mother's care, love and affection which has been deprived to them by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the consideration of the matter, this Court has reached the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that she was subjected to any cruelty by her husband, rather it is the appellant who is responsible for her own sorry state of affairs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'I(1994)DMC452', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Gurbachan Singh', 'sub' => 'Family', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '619373' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Pritam Kaur Vs. Gurbachan Singh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 13', (int) 1 => 'the Hindu Marriage Act' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Amarjeet Chaudhary', (int) 1 => 'the Court of Shri K.C. Gupta', (int) 2 => 'Kalka', (int) 3 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 4 => 'PW-2', (int) 5 => 'Court', (int) 6 => 'Court', (int) 7 => 'Court' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'RW-2', (int) 2 => 'RW-2', (int) 3 => 'RW-2' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Pritam Kaur', (int) 1 => 'Ambala', (int) 2 => 'Sikh', (int) 3 => 'Badhawa Singh', (int) 4 => 'Sonia', (int) 5 => 'Sonia', (int) 6 => 'Sonia', (int) 7 => 'Sonia', (int) 8 => 'Exhibits A-2' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1955', (int) 1 => '29.11.1988', (int) 2 => 'November, 1987', (int) 3 => 'a few days', (int) 4 => 'November, 1987' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Additional District' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Gurbachan Singh respondent.2' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '4.5.1975', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'one' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'affairs.10' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '619373', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> - Sections 13', 'appealno' => 'First Appeal from Order No. 121-M of 1989', 'appellant' => 'Pritam Kaur', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Pritam Kaur Vs. Gurbachan Singh', 'casenote' => ' - 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. - No child would like to depose against his/her parents. It is a matter of common knowledge that a child has equal love and affection for the parent A child speaks against his mother only if he rinds that the attitude of his mother is offensive against his father. The appellant has not even bothered for her children who are of tender age and are in need of mother's care, love and affection which has been deprived to them by the appellant. 9. On the consideration of the matter, this Court has reached the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that she was subjected to any cruelty by her husband, rather it is the appellant who is responsible for her own sorry state of affairs.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' K.S. Sidhu, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' K.K. Aggarwal, Adv.', 'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1992-10-15', 'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Smt. Pritam Kaur, appellant, had filed the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce Section 13 of the <a href="/act/50935/hindu-marriage-act-1955-complete-act">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955</a> in the Court of Shri K.C. Gupta, Additional District. Judge, Ambala, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 29.11.1988. She had sought, divorce on the ground of cruelty at the hands of her husband Gurbachan Singh respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts regarding solemnisation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on 4.5.1975 according to Sikh rites at Kalka and birth of three daughters besides one son out of their wed-lock are not in dispute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Court :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In order to prove her case, the appellant examined PW-1 Badhawa Singh besides her own statement as PW-2. On the other hand, respondent while appearing as PW-1 denied the allegations and examined his daughter Ms. Sonia as RW-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Sonia while appearing as RW-2, who happens to be daughter of the parties, was categoric in saying that her father never quarrelled with her mother. As per this witness, her mother never wanted to keep them on the pretext that she was in service. It is revealed from the statement of this witness that whenever she alongwith her brother and sisters want to see their mother, they were given bearing by her mother and were told to go to the house of their father, it has also come in her statement that whenever the children went to the house of the appellant alongwith their father, she got the respondent arrested in cases. She had denied in clear terms that her father had ever made any attempt to kill her mother with a sword. Taking into consideration the statement of this witness, I am of the considered view that Sonia. (RW-2) has narrated the true facts and her statement cannot be treated as concocted or unworthy of credence. No child would like to depose against his/her parents. It is only under the compelling circumstances that a child has to speak against the patents. It is a matter of common knowledge that a child has equal love and affection for the parent A child speaks against his mother only if he rinds that the attitude of his mother is offensive against his father. Thus, I am of the view that Sonia while appearing as RW-2 must have narrated the true facts and as such there is no reason to disbelieve her statement.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. It has also come into the evidence of the appellant that she had lived with her husband till November, 1987 i.e. a few days prior to the filing of the divorce petition and had performed marital obligations. Even if for argument sake, it is assumed that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty, but the same is deemed to have been condoned by the appellant as she had lived with her husband till November, 1987. The documents Exhibits A-2 and A-6 relate to the period after the institution of the divorce petition. The complaints filed by the appellant appear to have been filed in order to create evidence against the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. On a Court query, the appellant, who was present in the Court, refused to reconcile with the respondent. The appellant has adopted a very stiff attitude and is not ready to compromise with her husband. The appellant has not even bothered for her children who are of tender age and are in need of mother's care, love and affection which has been deprived to them by the appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the consideration of the matter, this Court has reached the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that she was subjected to any cruelty by her husband, rather it is the appellant who is responsible for her own sorry state of affairs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'I(1994)DMC452', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Gurbachan Singh', 'sub' => 'Family', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '619373' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 13, the Hindu Marriage Act
ORG: Amarjeet Chaudhary, the Court of Shri K.C. Gupta, Kalka, the Trial Court, PW-2, Court, Court, Court
NORP: J.1, RW-2, RW-2, RW-2
PERSON: Pritam Kaur, Ambala, Sikh, Badhawa Singh, Sonia, Sonia, Sonia, Sonia, Exhibits A-2
DATE: 1955, 29.11.1988, November, 1987, a few days, November, 1987
LOC: Additional District
FAC: Gurbachan Singh respondent.2
CARDINAL: 4.5.1975, three, one
GPE: affairs.10