RAJESH BURMANN versus MITUL CHATTERJEE (BURMAN)

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 04-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 264 
I 
A 
RAJESH BURMANN 
v. 
MITUL CHATTERJEE (BURMAN) 
(Civil Appeal No. 6443 lot 2008) 
B 
NOVEMBER 4, 2008 
[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, 1
1955 - Hindu Adoption 
and Maintenance Act, 1956. 
~ 
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 
E 
apply to Courts exercising power under the Act - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 - s.151. 
Words and phrases: 'maintenance' and 'support' -
Meaning of. 
In a suit filed by respondent-Wife for dissolution of 
/.-
F 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 
G arm. She was operated twice. The suit for dissolution of 
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 
Para 28 
-
( 
AIR (2007) Delhi 39 
referred to 
Para 29 
D 
,,.. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6443 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.2.2007of the 
E 
High Court at Calcutta in C.O. No. 2975 of 2006. 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.