SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Raj) 1118

(Supreme Court)
Honble C.K. THAKKER, J. Honble D.K. JAIN, J.
Rajesh Burman - Appellant
Versus
Mitul Chatterjee (Burman) - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6443 of 2008
Decided On : November 04, 2008

Advocates Appeared:
Not Available

Headnote:Special Marriage Act, 1954, Sec. 27; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Sec. 3, 18; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 24 and 25 – `Maintenance Scope – Reimbursement of medical expenses – Held – The right of the wife to claim medical expenses – The expression `maintenance includes medical expenses and therefore wife has a right to get medical reimbursement from her husband.(Paras 29 to 31) Appeal dismissed.

        fofk"B fookg vf/kfu;e] 1954] /kkjk 27( fgUnw nRrd xzg.k ,oa Hkj.k iks"k.k vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 3] 18( fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 4 ,oa 25 & ^^Hkj.k iks"k.k** kCn dh O;kfIr & fpfdRlh; O;; dk iquHkZj.k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fpfdRlh; O;; dk nkok djus dk iRuh dk vf/kdkj & kCn ^^Hkj.k iks"k.k** esa fpfdRlh; O;; Hkh lfEefyr gS vr% ifr ls fpfdRlh; iquHkZj.k ikus dk iRuh dk vf/kdkj gksrk gSA ¼in la[;k 29 ls 31½ vihy [kkfjt dhA

Honble THAKKER, J.–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 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 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, Alipore, 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 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




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top