REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.       OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 14183 OF 2007

RAJESH BURMANN … APPELLANT

VERSUS

MITUL CHATTERJEE (BURMAN) … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T C.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against

the judgment and 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,

Alipore  and  modified  by  the  High  Court  of

Calcutta on February 13, 2007 in C.O. No. 2975

of 2006.

3. Shortly stated the facts of the case

are that the appellant Rajesh Burman is the

husband  of  respondent  Mitul  Chatterjee

(Burman). The marriage between the parties was

solemnized on January 26, 2000 at Calcutta. The

wife  permanently  joined  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 office hours.

At about 9.30 p.m., the 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.

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

2

about 4 steps + 8 steps + 7 steps. According to

the  appellant-husband,  his  wife  came  out  to

prevent him from getting down 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.

6. It  was stated by the appellant 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

punishable under Sections 498A, 325, 406 and

506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (IPC).  It was also alleged by her

that it was her husband who had pushed her and

caused injuries. The appellant has stated that

he as well as his mother (mother-in-law of the

respondent)  were arrested.  The appellant  was

3

constrained  to  approach  the  High  Court  of

Bombay  for quashing  criminal proceedings  and

obtained stay 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 on May 02, 2002.

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 appellant-

husband  under  Section  27  of  the  Special

Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter 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

4

dissolved  by  a  decree  of  divorce  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.

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  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 reimbursement by

filing an application under Section 151 of the

Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  1908  (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Code’) in the pending suit

5

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  wife  by  filing  counter

affidavit  taking  several  grounds  inter  alia

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;

she had already received the amount from the

Insurance  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.

10. The  learned  Judge,  however,  rejected

all the contentions of the husband. He held

that  the  wife  was  entitled  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

6

Insurance  Company.  The  said  amount  was,

therefore,  required  to  be  deducted.

Accordingly,  the  trial  Court  directed  the

husband to pay an 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

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

Rs.83,723/-. Accordingly, the said 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.

7

13. We have heard learned counsel for the

parties.

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

the appellant-husband was not responsible for

the injuries sustained by the wife. It was a

case of accident-pure and 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  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

8

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

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

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. Regarding medical

expenses, the wife had to undergo two major

operations  and  still  she  is  not  completely

9

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 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 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 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.

10

18. Having heard learned counsel for the

parties,  in  our  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.  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.

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.

11

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

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 Act, 1955 or

Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. The

counsel urged that it has been held by this

Court that no relief 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  M/s

MSCO Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., (1985)

1 SCC 51]. The 1954 Act does not provide for

12

medical expenses and hence on that ground also

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 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.  

21. Section  36  of  this  Act  deals  with

‘alimony pendente lite’ and states; Section 36 - Alimony  pendente lite.— Where in any 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  the husband to pay to her the expenses of the proceeding, and weekly or monthly during  the  proceeding  such  sum  as

13

having regard to the husband's income, it  may  seem  to  the  court  to  be reasonable. Provided that the application for the payment  of  the  expenses  of  the proceeding and such weekly or monthly 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 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 time subsequent to the decree, on application made to it  for  the  purpose,  order  that  the husband shall secure to the wife for her  maintenance  and  support,  if necessary,  by  a  charge  on  the husband's property such gross sum or such monthly or periodical payment of money  for  a  term  not  exceeding  her life,  as,  having  regard  to  her  own 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  the circumstances of either party at any

14

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.

(3) If the district court is satisfied that 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 and in such manner as the court may deem just.

23. Reading the scheme of the Act, it is

clear that a wife is entitled to ‘maintenance

and support’. In our considered opinion, the

learned  counsel  for  the  respondent-wife  is

right  in  submitting  that  the  two  terms

‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ are comprehensive

in nature and of wide amplitude.  

24. The term ‘maintenance’ is defined in

Black’s  Law Dictionary, (6th Edn., pp.953-54)

thus;

15

“The  furnishing  by  one  person  to another,  for his or her support, of the  means  of  living,  or  food, clothing, shelter, 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;

“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  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 death”.

26. The Court below also considered some

of the decisions cited before them. In Pradeep

Kumar Kapoor v. Ms. Shailja Kapoor,  AIR 1989

Delhi 10, the High Court of Delhi interpreted

16

‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ under Section 24 of

the 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  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 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,  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 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 for a  person  to  live  on",  like  "he supports a family" or "he supports his old mother." Maintenance is "an act of maintaining",  i.e.  to  support  with money. For example, "he is too poor to

17

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 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 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  entitled  to  live  separately  from her  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 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,

18

clothing,  residence,  education,  medical

attendance and treatment. 28. In R. Suresh v. Smt. Chandra, AIR 2003

Karnataka 183, a similar question arose before

the  High  Court  of  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  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 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.

19

Obligation of the husband to pay such expenses

cannot be deferred till final adjudication of

the suit. Nor can husband avoid obligation to

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 SCC 88].

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,  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  hearing  the  parties,

20

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 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.

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  the  case,  ends  of  justice

would  be  met  if  we  grant  some  time  to  the

appellant-husband to pay the amount. Let the

21

said amount be paid by the husband latest by

December 31, 2008.

34. Ordered accordingly.

…………………………………………………J. (C.K. THAKKER)

NEW DELHI, …………………………………………………J. NOVEMBER 04, 2008. (D.K. JAIN)

22