Holding

The Supreme Court held that the application under Section 151 CPC is maintainable and that ‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 include medical expenses, making the wife entitled to reimbursement.

Summary

The husband appealed against a High Court order directing him to reimburse his wife’s medical expenses incurred after she fell down the stairs. The wife had filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC in a pending matrimonial suit under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, seeking medical reimbursement. The Supreme Court held that such an application is maintainable and that the terms “maintenance” and “support” under the Special Marriage Act are broad enough to include medical expenses. Consequently, the wife is entitled to reimbursement, subject to deduction of the amount already received from an insurance company, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 151 CPC for medical reimbursement filed by a wife in a matrimonial suit under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is maintainable.
Whether the expressions ‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 encompass medical expenses.
Whether the husband is liable to pay the wife’s medical expenses despite the claim of accident and prior insurance reimbursement.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956s. 18, s. 3
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Special Marriage Act, 1954s. 36, s. 37

Subjects

maintenancesupportmedical reimbursementSpecial Marriage ActSection 151 CPCinterim maintenancefamily lawjurisdictionalimony pendente lite

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 264

I

A RAJESH BURMANN
v.
MITUL CHATTERJEE (BURMAN)
(Civil Appeal No. 6443 lot 2008)

NOVEMBER 4, 2008
B

-
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
. !
¥'

Maintenance - Medical reimbursement - Claim for, by
wife -.Entitlement - Held: Wife is entitled to maintenance and
c support under the 1954 Act- Expressions 'maintenance' and
'support' are comprehensive and .of wide amplitude and take
within their sweep medical expenses - Special Marriage Act,
1954 - s.36 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act, 1956. ~
1

D
Special Marriage Act, 1954 - s.36 - Application under ,J,.
'
s.151 CPC, by wife for claiming medical expenses, pending
suit for dissolution of marriage· - Ma~ntainabi/ity of - Held:
Maintainable - The provisions of Cdde of Civil Procedure
apply to Courts exercising power under the Act - Code of Civil
E Procedure, 1908 - s.151.

Words and phrases: 'maintenance' and 'support' -
Meaning of.
/.-
F In a suit filed by respondent-Wife for dissolution of
marriage, the wife filed an application under s.151, CPC
claiming reimbursement of medical expenses. Case of
wife was that she was pushed by ~er husband from the
staircase. As a result, she fell down and fractured her left
arm. She was operated twice. The suit for dissolution of
G marriage was filed 15 days after the incident. The
appellant-husband stated that he r.vas not responsible .,.,
for the injuries sustained by his wife 'and a false claim was
put forward by her. It was further the case of husband that

H 264
RAJESH BURMANN v. MITUL CHATTERJEE (BURMAN) 265

" the respondent-wife had received amount from A
Insurance Company towards medical·expenses and
reimbursement had already been made.

The Trial Court held that the wife was entitled to
medical reimbursement but observed that admittedly, the B
wife had received an amount of Rs.76, 181/- out of the
r: total expenses incurred by her, from the Insurance
,.
Company. Accordingly, the trial Court directed the
husband to pay an amount of Rs.3, 06, 181/-, after
deducting the said amount received by her.
c
Appellant-husband challenged the said order by
approaching the High Court invoking Article 227 of the
Constitution. The High Court partly allowed the petition
observing that the Trial Court did not commit any error
of law or of jurisdiction in ordering the husband to pay D
.>-
• reimbursement of medical expenses to the wife. It was
however, held that the wife was not entitled to the amount
reportedly spent for air-fare. Accordingly, the said
amount was deducted and the remaining amount was
ordered to be paid. Hence the instant appeal. E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Interference is not called for against the
..I order pass~d by the trial Court and as modified by the
High Court. So far as maintainability of application filed F
by the wife is concerned, there is no substance. in the
contention that such an application is not tenable.
Proceedings had been initiated in accordance with the
provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and
matrimonial suit was pending. In the circumstances, it G
"'\
was open to the applicant wife who had initiated the
proceedings for dissolution of marriage in a competent
Court to institute such application. Even otherwise,
'
looking to the scheme of the Act, it is clear that provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to Courts H
RAJESH BURMANN v. MITUL CHATTERJEE (BURMAN) 267
....
There is no infirmity in the decision or reasoning of the A
=r:~
Courts below which calls for i~terference in exercise of
discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136
of the Constitution. [Para 31] [277-G-H; 278-A]
Case Law Reference :
B
(1993] 3 sec 406 referred to Para 19
~

[1985] 1 sec 51 referred to Para 19
(1995] 6 sec 88 relied on Para 29
AIR (1989) Delhi 10 referred to Para 26
c
-
AIR (1998) Bombay 234 referred to Para 27

- (
,,..
AIR (2003) Karnataka 183 referred to
AIR (2007) Delhi 39 referred to
Para 28
Para 29 D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6443 of 2008.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.2.2007of the
High Court at Calcutta in C.O. No. 2975 of 2006. E

Bijan Kumar Ghosh for the Appellant.

-I Mukul Rohatgi, Utpal Majumdar, Dipak Kumar Jena,
. Humanyu Sahoo, Meenakshi Jena and Pranab Kumar Mullick
•F
for the Respondent.

· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J~ 1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal .is directed against the judgment and G
""(
I'
order dated January 06, 2006 in Order No. 22 of 2002 in
Matrimonial Suit NO .. 4 of 2005, passed by the Court of
Additional District Judge, 7th Court, South, 24 Parganas 1
:. AJipore and modified by the High Court of Calcutta on February
H
I-
268 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]15 S.C.R ):::::
~

A 13, 2007 in C.O. No. 2975 of 200,6.
>
~
3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant ')

Rajesh Burman is the husband of respondent Mitul Chatterjee t>-
(Burman). The marriage between the parties was solemnized
on January 26, 2000 at Calcutta. The wife permanently joined
B matrimonial home by coming to Bombay on February 25, 2001
where her husband was serving.

4. According to the appellant, on June 16, 2001, he was·
stuck up in the office work and could not reach at home after
c office hours. At about 9.30 p.m.; t~e respondent-wife came to
the office of her husband and abused him for being late and
not coming back in time. At 1.30 a.m. in the night, he returned
home but as soon as he arrived, his wife became furious and
violently abusive in presence of her father and grand parents. ;'-

D 5. It is the say of the appellant that he wanted to walk out
and to allow her anger to cool down. He was leaving fast
"
through a stair case which was a rotated .three fold stair of
about 4 steps + 8 steps + 7 steps. According to the appellant-
husband, his wife came out to prevent him from getting down
E but mis-stepped being sleeping drowsy in the dead hour and
claded in long sleeping gown. She, hence, fell down and
suffered injury in the left arm resulting in fracture. Medical ~

treatment was given to her. )..

F 6. It was -stated by the appella·nt that even according to the·
wife, it was a case of accident wherein she received injuries.
After long period of ten days, on June 26, 2001, the wife-
respondent herein lodged a complaint in local police station
against her husband (appellant) and her-in-laws for offences
G punishable under Sections 498A, 325, 406 and 506 readwith
I
I
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It was also ~ t-
alleged by her that it was her husb.and who had pushed her and
caused injuries. The appellant has stated that he as well as his r
H
mother (mother-in-law of the respondent) were arrested. The
appellant was constrained to approach tbe High Court of t
t
RAJESH BURMANN v. MITUL CHATTERJEE (BURMAN) 269
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

Bombay for quashing criminal proceedings and obtained stay A
of further proceedings. Due to shock, however, his mother
suffered heart attack and died. The appellant is facing criminal
trial. It has also come on record that the wife was operated
twice; first operation was performed in the Bombay Hospital
on June 19/20, 2001 and the second operation was performed B
on May 02, 2002.
l 't
7. It may also be stated at this stage that the relations
between the husband and wife are far from cordial and friendly.
The respondent-wife has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage
and for a decree of divorce on July 01, 2001 against the
c
appellant-husband under Section 27 of the Special Marriage
Act, 1954 (herei11after referred to as 'the 1954 Act') in the Court
of District Judge, Aliore, 24 Parganas (S), West Bengal. In the
suit, prayers were sought to declare that the marriage between
)- the parties was liable to be dissolved by a decree of divorce 0
at the instance of plaintiff-wife, to return goods lying under the
care, custody and control of the defendant-husband, to pay
alimony pendente lite as also permanent alimony, to pay costs
and to grant such other relief as the Court may deem fit and
proper. The appellant-husband is contesting the suit. E

8. According to the appellant, though he was not
responsible for the injuries sustained by his wife, a false claim
~ was put forward by her against the appellant-husband for
reimbursement of medical expenses. It was his case that the F
respondent-wife had received amount from Insurance
Company towards medical expenses and reimbursement had
already been made. Yet by suppressing all those facts and with
a view to harass the husband, she preferred a claim for medical
reilT,lbursement by filing an application under Section 151 of the G
.., Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Code') in the pending suit praying therein that the husband may
be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,82,262-75 paise towards
medical reimbursement.

9. The appellant contested the claim of reimbursement of H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 15 S.C.R.
./

A wife by filing counter affidavit taking several g~ounds inter a/ia
contending that the petition filed by the wife was not
maintainable; there was suppression of facts on her part; she
was gainfully employed and was not entitled to any amount from
him; s.he had already received the ~mount from the Insurance
B Company and the husband was not liable to pay anything to
her. It was, therefore, prayed by the husband that the application
was devoid of any merit and was liable to be dismissed. 1- ~

10. The learned Judge, however, rejected all the
contentions of the husband. He held that the wife was entitled
c to medical reimbursement but observed that admittedly, the wife
had received an amount of Rs.76, 181/- out of the total
expenses incurred by her from the Insurance Company. The
said amount was, therefore, required to be deducted.
Accordingly, the trial Court directed the husband to pay an
0 amount of Rs.3,06, 181/-.
.......

11. The appellant-husband challenged the said order ,...
passed by the trial Court by approaching the High Court of
Calcutta invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court
E partly allowed.the petition observing that the trial Judge did not
commit any error of law or of jurisdiction in ordering the husband
to pay to the wife medical reimbursement. He, however, held
that the wife was not entitled to the amount reportedly spent for
air-fare i.e. an amount of Rs.21,568/- plus Rs.62, 155/- totaling ,.._

F Rs.83,723/-. Accordingly, the saio amount was deducted and
the remaining amount was ordered to be paid.
12. The above decision of the High Court is challenged in ,
the present proceedings by the husband. ~
'
G 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. .._
r
14. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously
contended that both the Courts had committed an error of law
in granting medical reimbursement to the wife. It was urged that
H the appellant-husband was not responsible for the injuries
RAJESH BURMANN v. MITUL CHATIERJEE (BURMAN) 271
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

sustained by the wife. It was a case of accident-pure and A
simple and the wife was to be blamed for it. No order, therefore,
could have been passed by the Courts directing the appellant-
husband to pay any amount to the wife. It was also urged that
the parties are governed by the 1954 Act which does not
provide for such expenses. An application under Section 151 e
of the Code filed by the wife was, therefore, not maintainable
and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such application
or to make any order. It was further urged that an equitable relief
could not be granted in favour of the applicant-wife who
suppressed material facts. She had not stated that she had c
been gainfully employed and did not depend on husband.
Initially, it was not disclosed by her that she had received any
amount from the Insurance Company. She had also claimed air
fare charges to which she was not entitled and the High Court
reduced the said amount. All actions had been taken by the wife
only with a view to harass the appellant-husband and in the
0
totality of circumstances, the application was liable to be
dismissed.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife, on the
other hand, supported the order passed by the trial Court and E
modified by the High Court. According to him, the wife was
entitled to the amount claimed by her. It was stated that so far
as the gainful employment of wife is concerned, the said issue
is no more in controversy. The wife was held entitled to
maintenance and the said right has been upheld upto this Court. F
Regarding medical expenses, the wife had to undergo two
major operations and still she is not completely cured. In future,
she will have to undergo further operation as also to take
medical treatment. She has spent substantial amount.

16. According to her, she was pushed by her husband from G
the stair case. His intention was to cause such injuries which
may result in her death. Fortunately, however, she survived. It
was also submitted that air fare charges were· also incurred in
connection with medical treatment of the wife but the High Court H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
./ .

A had reduced the amount. That, however, does not mean that
the wife is not entitled to medical expenses granted in her
favour by the Courts below.

17. It was also submitted that the terms 'maintenance' and
'support' are very wide so as to include medical expenses and
B
both the Courts were right in granting medical reimbursement.
This Court may not interfere with the order in exercise of +~

discretionary power under Article ,136 of the Constitution.

18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our
c opinion, no interference is called for against the order passed
by the trial Court and modified by the High Court. So far as
maintainability of application filed by the wife is concerned, we
see no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for
the husband that such an application is not tenable.
D Proceedings had been initiated in accordance with the
provisions of the 1954 Act and matrimonial suit was pending.
In the circumstances, in our view, it was open to the applicant
wife who had initiated the proceedings for dissolution of
marriage in a competent Court to institute such application.
E Even otherwise, looking to the scheme of the Act, it is clear that
provisions of the Code would apply to Courts exercising power
under the Act. The preliminary objection raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant as to the jurisdiction of the trial Court
has no substance and must be rejected.
F 19. It was also contended that the Act is 'self contained
Code' and hence while interpreting the provisions of the 1954
Act, interpretation on various provisions of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 or Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 cannot
be blindly accepted nor a case can be decided on the basis
G of those decisions. It was submitted that whether the wife is
entitled to the relief of medical expenses should be considered
under the Act of 1954. The decisions of some High Courts on
which reliance has been placed by the Courts below are not
under the 1954 Act but they are either under the Hindu Marriage
H Act, 1955 or Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. The
RAJESH RURMANN v. MITUL CHATTERJEE (BURMAN) 273
[C.K .. THAKKER, J.]

counsel urged that it has been held by this Court that no relief A
can be claimed under one statute relying on the provisions of
the other statute [vide Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawaharlal
Dhawan, [1993) 3 SCC 406 and Mis MSCO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union
of India & Ors., [1985] 1 SCC 51). The 1954 Act does not
provide for medical expenses and hence on that ground also B
no order could have been made.
-~

20. We are unable to uphold the contention. The Special
Marriage Act, 1954, as stated in the Preamble, provides a
special form of marriage in certain cases, for the registration
of such and certain other marriages and for divorce. The Act
c
provides for solemnization of special marriages, registration
thereof, consequences of marriage under the Act, restitution of
conjugal rights, judicial separation and nullity of marriage and
divorce. It also provides for jurisdiction of Courts and procedure
to be followed. D
,).

21. Section 36 of this Act deals with 'alimony pendente
lite' and states;

Section 36 - Alimony pendente lite.-Where in any g
proceeding under Chapter V or Chapter VI it appears to
the district court that the wife has no independent income
sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of
the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife, order
-l the husband to pay to her the expenses of the proceeding,
F
and weekly or monthly during the proceeding such sum as
having regard to the husband's income, it may seem to the
I court to be reasonable.

Provided that the application for the payment of the
expenses of the proceeding and such weekly or monthly G
sum during the proceeding under Chapter V or Chapter
-....;
VI, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty
days from the date of service of notice on the husband.

22. Section 37 of the Act provides for 'permanent alimony
H
~
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 15 S.C.R.

/
A and maintenance' and reads thus;

Section 37 - Permanent alimony and maintenance.-(1)
Any court exercising jurisdiction under Chapter V or
Chapter VI may, at the time of passing any decree or at
any tii;ne subsequent to the decree, on application made
B
to it for the purpose, order that the husband shall secure
to the wife for her maintenance and support, ifnecessary,
by a charge on the huspand's property such gross sum or
~- .
such monthly or pe~iodiCal payment of money for a term ·
not exceeding her life, as, having regard to her own
c property, if any, her husband's property and ability, the
conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the
case, it may seem to the court to be just.

(2) If the district court is satisfied that there is a change in
D the circumstances of either party at any time after it has
made an order under sub-section (1 ), it may, at the ....
instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such
order in such manner as it may seem to the court to be
just.
E ·~-
(3) If the district court is satisfied ~hat the wife in whose
favour an order has been made under this section has re-
married or is not leading a chaste life, it may, at the
instance of the husband vary, modify or rescind any such
order ahd in such manner as the court may deem just. ,l I

F ~
L·
23. Reading th.e scheme of the Act, it is clear that a wife
is entitled to 'maintenance and support'. Jn our considered ~
opinion, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife is right in .."
submitting that the two terms .'maintenance' and 'support' are ·
G comprehensive in nature and of wide amplitude.
24. The term 'maintenance' is defined in Black's Law )o-

Dictionary, (6th Edn., pp. 953-54) thus;

"The furnishing by one person to another, for his or her
H
....
RAJESH BURMANN v. MITUL CHATTERJEE (BURMAN) 275
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

support, of the means of living, or food, clothing, shelter, A
etc., particularly where the legal relation of the parties is
such that one is bound to support the other, as between
father and child or husband and wife".

25. Likewise, the word 'support' as defined in the said
Dictionary (p. 1439) reads as under;
B

. -1 "That which furnishes a livelihood; a source or means of
living; subsistence, sustenance, maintenance, or living. In
a broad sense the term includes all such means of living
as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort c
suitable and becoming to his station of life. It is said to
include anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing,
health, proper recreation, vacation, traveling expense, or
other proper cognate purposes; also proper care, nursing
and medical attendance in sickness and suitable burial at D
death".

26. The Court below also considered some of the
decisions cited before them. In Pradeep Kumar Kapoor v. Ms.
Shai/ja Kapoor, AIR (1989) Delhi 10, the High Court of Delhi
interpreted 'maintenance' and 'support' under Section 24 of the E
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and observed;

"Under Section 24 of the Act, the court has to see if the
applicant who may either be wife or husband has no
~
independent income sufficient for her or his support and F
the necessary expenses of the proceeding, and then award
expenses of the proceeding and such sum every month,
having regard to the applicant's own income and the
income of the respondent which may seem to the court to
be reasonable. This section may be contrasted with G
Section 25 of the Act which deals with permanent alimony
and maintenance. Under Section 25, the court may order
the respondent to pay to the applicant for her or his
maintenance and support, till her or his lifetime, either a
lumpsum amount or such monthly or periodical sum, H
·-L...- -

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 15 S.C.R.

A having regard to the respondent's own income and other
property, if any, and the income and other property of the
applicant, the conduct of the parties and other
circumstances of the case, which the court might deem just.
It may be noticed that heading of Section 24 of the Act is
"Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of
B
proceedings". The section, however, does not use the
word_ "maintenance", but, to me, it appears that the words
...support" and "maintenance" are synonymous, "Support"
means "to provide money tot a person to live on", like "he
supports a family" or "he supports his old mother."
c Maintenance is "an act of maintaining", i.e. to support with
money. For example, "he is too poor to maintain his family".
It may be useful at this stage to refer to the definition of
'*maintenance" as given in the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'). Under
D Section 3 of that Act, "maintenance" includes-{i) in all
cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education
and medical attendance and treatment ; (ii) in the case of
an unmarried daughter also the reasonable expenses of
and incident to her marriage. I would, therefore, think that
E when we talk of maintenance and support, the definition
of "maintenance" as given in the Act of 1956 should be
adopted. Section 18 of the Act of 1956 also refers to
maintenance of wife and gives the circumstances under
which a Hindu wife is entitl~d to live separately from her .L
F husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance".

27. In Atul Sashikant Mude v. Niranjana Atul Mude, AIR
(1998) Bombay 234, the Court considered the provisions of the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and held that a
G Court is empowered to pass interim and ad-interim orders of
maintenance. It was held that the inclusive definition _of the
'maintenance' under the Act would include food, clothing,
residence, education, medical attendance and treatment.

28. In R. Suresh v. Smt. Chandra, AIR (2003) Karnataka
H
RAJ ESH BURMANN v. MITUL CHATIERJEE (BURMAN) 277
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]

183, a similar question arose before the High Court of A
Karnataka. Construing the word 'support' in Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court held that the word 'support'
occurring in the said section can be given the same meaning
attributed to the word 'maintenance' as defined in Section 3 of
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which would B
include provisions for food, clothing, residence, education,

-· medical attendance and treatment.

29. Recently, in Ajay Saxena v. Smt. Rachna Saxena, AIR
(2007) Delhi 39, analysing the provisions of Hindu Adoptions C ,
and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Court held that in a suit under
Section 18 of the Act, the wife can claim interim maintenance.
It was further held that such interim maintenance may also cover
expenses incurred towards medical treatment. Obligation of the
husband to pay such expenses cannot be deferred till final
adjudication of the suit. Nor can husband avoid obligation to D
pay further sum to his wife towards medical reimbursement on
the ground that the amount of interim maintenance being
passed included entire expenses on medical treatment. [See
also Mangat Mal & Anr. v. Puni Devi (Smt) & Anr., [1995] 6
sec 88]. E

30. As already indicated earlier, the right of the wife to claim
interim maintenance has been upheld by the Court and the said
decision has attained finality. Apart from the provisions of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 or Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, F
1956, in our considered opinion, the two expressions,
'maintenance' and 'support' in the Act of 1954 are
comprehensive and of wide amplitude and they would take
within their sweep medical expenses.

31. On the basis of material on record, the trial Court, after G
hearing the parties, held that the wife was entitled to medical
expenses which order was slightly modified by the High Court
upholding her right to get medical reimbursement from her
husband. We see no infirmity in the decision or reasoning of
the Courts below which calls for our interference in exercise of H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

/
A discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution. The appeal in our view, therefore, has no
substance and must be dismissed.

32. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
B
33. The learned counsel for the appellant-husband at this
stage prayed for instalments or extension of time to make
payment as per the order of the High Court. In our opinion, the
·-
prayer is reasonable. On the facts and in the circumstances of
c the case, ends of justice woul~ be met if we grant some time
~

to the appellant-husband to pay the amount. Let the said
amount be paid by the husbanp latest by December 31, 2008.

34. Ordered accordingly.
D
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
J...