The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to provide medical treatment to the spouse and child, as emphasized by the definition of 'maintenance' under Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) THE present appeal arises out of the order dated 11th August, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge on an application bearing IA No. 1023/2003, whereby the respondent/plaintiff who is the wife of the appellant/defendant prayed for directions to the appellant/defendant to reimburse the respondent/plaintiff for the expenses incurred by her on account of her treatment for Tuberculosis of the Spine amounting to Rs. 66,642/- up to 3rd January, 2003. By way of the impugned order, the learned single Judge observed that the respondent had failed to file any reply to the application in question which was pending for almost two and a half years. It was also observed that various receipts had been filed by the respondent showing that she was suffering from Tuberculosis of Spine and was undergoing treatment for the same which was still continuing. On the basis of the consolidated details of expenses filed by the respondent and annexed to the aforesaid application moved by her, the learned single Judge directed the appellant to reimburse the respondent, the expenses to the extent of Rs. 66,542/- within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said order.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforementioned order, allowing the application of the respondent, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Along with the said appeal, he has also filed an application (CM No. 17317/ 2005) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying inter alia, for condonation of delay of 35 days in preferring the present appeal. In the said application, it is submitted by the appellant that a certified copy of the impugned order dated 11th August, 2005 was applied for in the registry of this Court on 18th August, 2005. The registry delivered the certified copy of the order on 23rd august, 2005, upon which the appellant approached his counsel to examine the order and advice as to whether the same could be assailed before the Division Bench. It is submitted that the counsel examined the order and asked the appellant to verify from the Court records as to whether the respondent had filed all the necessary documents in support of her claim as made in the application in question. It is further stated that the appellant verified the records and informed his counsel on 5th October, 2005 that no original receipts in support of her medical reimbursement had been filed. Based on the said information, the counsel for the appellant opined that it was fit case for preferring an appeal against the impugned order before the Division Bench. After seeking the said opinion, the appellant tried to contact his counsel to file the appeal but on account of the fact that the courts were closed for the Dussehra vacations, he could contact his counsel only on reopening of the High Court, i. e. on 18th october, 2005 and accordingly his counsel prepared and filed the present appeal on 20th October, 2005. Hence, the appellant has sought condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal which, according to him, was neither deliberate nor intentional.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and have also perused the records.

( 4 ) WE would also like to indicate that upon the present appeal being filed, notice was issued to the respondent on 9th December, 2005. The respondent was present in person and accepted notice in the Court. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for two dates, i. e. 5th April and 11th July, 2006. When the matter was taken on 23rd August, 2006 and the counsel for the appellant failed to appear, we had imposed costs of Rs. 10. 000/- on the appellant, payable to the respondent. It was also indicated that in case of failure to make the payment within two weeks, the appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed without further reference to the court and with this order, the matter was adjourned to 6th September, 2006. After the aforementioned order was passed, the appellant stated that he could not pay the costs and