R. Suresh Vs. Smt. Chandra M.A. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(a) hindu marriage act, 1955 (central act no. 257 1955)--section 24--whether a wife can claim reimbursement of expenses incurred by her towards medical treatment from her husband? whether medical expenses incurred by the claimant can form part of an application under section 24 of the hindu marriage act.;the applicant has produced copies of the receipts and bills issued by the hospital giving details of payments and the heads under which the amount has been charged. we have no reason to doubt either the bona fides or the correctness of the material produced by the applicant before the court. hence, the amount claimed by the wife be reimbursed at the earliest.; (b) hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956 (central act no. 78 of 1956)--section 3(b)(i)--whether the word 'maintenance' in hindu adoptions maintenance act and the word 'support' used under section 24 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 are one and the same.; section 3 (b)(i) of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act defines maintenance to be inclusive of provision for food, clothing, residence, education, and medical attendance and treatment. the definition here is also not an extensive definition, but inclusive one and nevertheless specifically mentions about medical attendance and treatment. the meaning attributed to the word 'maintenance' and as defined under section 3(b)(i) can be taken to be the meaning even under the word 'support' used under section 24 of the 'hindu marriage act' the words 'support' and 'maintenance' are synonyms and the definition of 'maintenance' as given under the hindu adoption and maintenance act equally applies to the word 'support' figuring in section 24 of the hindu marriage act. the decision of delhi high court in pradeep kumar kapoor v. ms. shailaja kapoor air 1989 del 10 followed and relying on the said decision we hold that the application of the present nature seeking for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a dependent spouse is definitely one which can be allowed in an application under section 24 of the hindu marriage act, ; application of wife allowed. - industrial disputes act, 1947. [c.a. no. 14/1947]. section 33-c (2): [subhash b. adi, j] application under removal of workman from service- award for reinstatement in service with 85% of back wages and consequential benefits challenge to award modification of back wages from 85% to 50% - claim of the workman for shoe allowance, uniform allowance, stitching allowance, washing allowance etc., - held, the uniform is given to the employee to use the same while he is on duty. uniform is not given for regular or casual wear of the employee. if the employee is not admittedly on duty or was not worked during the said period, he cannot claim the uniform allowance just because that he has been directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits with continuity of service. continuity of service does not mean that, a person who has not worked and who was not wearing the uniform, is still entitled for uniform allowance for the said period. similarly, when uniform allowance cannot be granted, the granting of washing and stitching allowance does not arise. further, as per the rules and regulations of the corporation, the employee is entitled for the reimbursement of the medical bill. reimbursement of the medical bill presupposes that, the employee has suffered illness and for which he has spent money. what is awarded is so far as medical allowance is concerned, is in terms of the agreement. tribunal has not committed any error in granting the medical allowance. in respect of shoe allowance, uniform allowance, stitching allowance, washing allowance, the award is modified. orderd.v. shylendra kumar, j.1. this is an application filed by the respondent-wife under section 24 of the hindu marriage act, 1955.2. the appellant and respondent were married in the year 1980 as per hindu customs and rites at chennai. it is not in dispute that they are living separately. the husband had filed m.c. no. 684 of 1993 praying for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife. the wife also had filed m.c. no. 701 of 1992 under section 9 of the hindu marriage act seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. both the petitions were tried together by the principal judge, family court, bangalore and while the petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage was dismissed, the petition filed by the wife seeking for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed as per the order dated 23rd march, 2001. it is as against this common judgment that the husband is in appeal.3. the wife had sought for interim maintenance and this court, as per order dated 23-7-2002, allowed the request of the wife for interim maintenance and had ordered payment of a sum of rs. 3,000/- per month and litigation expenses of rs. 10,000/-. the husband is a civil servant working as principal secretary to government of karnataka in the horticulture and agricultural department. there are some disputes as to the payment of this interim maintenance. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-husband that arrears of maintenance upto the end of march 2003 has already been paid pursuant to the order of this court dated 23-7-2002.4. subsequently, the wife has come up with this application praying for directions to be issued to the appellant-husband to pay a sum of rs. 35,000/- towards medical expenses that she has incurred in connection with some treatment she has undergone.5. the application is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the respondent-wife and it is stated that she had been hospitalised during the period from 2-5-2002 to 8-5-2002 at the lakshmi hospital', chennai with severe pain in the stomach region and the ailment was diagnosed as abdominal hysterectomy and she was advised to undergo surgery and an operation was performed by dr. s. devambigai. it is also asserted that a sum of rs. 20,000/- was paid towards professional charges towards operation and a further sum of rs. 4,094.15 p. was incurred towards drugs and medicines and the other hospital expenses towards operation theatre charges, bed charges etc., was rs. 6,450/-, it is also stated that the applicant was required to engage an attendant to take care of her during the period of her convalescence and she has incurred expenditure on that account also and as such a total sum of rs. 35,000/-was spent.6. the application was opposed by appellant-husband by filing objections. it is assented that the application is not maintainable; that the appellant is not liable to pay any amount in an application of this nature, particularly for expenses said to have been incurred towards medical treatment and as the husband is already paying the interim maintenance that has been awarded by this court, there is no occasion for him to pay further amount over and above the interim maintenance that has been awarded by the court. the husband has pleaded ignorance of the operation that the wife has undergone and he has not admitted the same and has disputed it. the husband has not admitted about the amount of expenditure incurred towards the treatment. the husband has stated in his objections that expenditure for treatment of the ailment mentioned by the applicant is not as high as claimed by the applicant and it is only a ruse by the applicant to extract further amount from the appellant.7. we have heard sri s. janardhana, learned counsel for the appellant, who has opposed the application. the learned counsel submits that the couple hardly lived together for a few months and that the wife has been staying separately from the husband for the past about 20 years and there is no responsibility or liability to meet such claim on the part of the husband which are on the face of it exorbitant and not tenable.8. learned counsel also submits that the appellant being a government servant, though is entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for his family members, such reimbursement is permitted only if the treatment had been at specified government hospital and not otherwise and the applicant having undergone treatment in a private nursing home and that too outside karnataka, he may not be in a position to get reimbursement of medical expenses incurred towards treatment of his wife.9. the question is not as to whether the appellant-husband can claim reimbursement of the medical expenses in respect of his wife which is only incidental, but the question is as to whether the wife can claim reimbursement of expenses incurred by her towards medical treatment from her husband.10. provisions of section 24 of the hindu marriage act provides for support to be given by the earning spouse in favour of non-earning spouse during the pendency of proceedings before the court. the question is as to whether medical expenses incurred by the claimant can form part of an application under section 24 of the hindu marriage act. the word 'support' has not been denned under the hindu marriage act. we will have to only look at the definition as given in the dictionary or as understood in general parlance. however, we can draw inspiration from the word 'maintenance' which has been defined under the provisions of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act.11. section 3(b)(i) of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act defines maintenance to be inclusive of provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment. the definition here is also not an' extensive definition, but inclusive one and nevertheless specifically mentions about medical attendance and treatment. the meaning attributed to the word 'maintenance' and as defined under section 3(b)(i) can be taken to be the meaning even under the word 'support' used under section 24 of the hindu marriage act. we notice that the delhi high court has taken such a view in the case of pradeep kumar kapoor v. smt. shailja kapoor, : air1989delhi10 . justice d.p. wadhwa of delhi high court has taken the view that the words 'support' and 'maintenance' are synonyms and the definition of 'maintenance' as given under the hindu adoptions and maintenance act equally applies to the word 'support' figuring in section 24 of the hindu marriage act. we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the hon'ble justice d.p. wadhwa of delhi high court and we hold that an application of the present nature seeking for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a dependent spouse is definitely one which can be allowed in an application under section 24 of the hindu marriage act.12. accordingly, we hold that the application is tenable.13. insofar as the dispute relating to the justification for incurring expenses and the extent of such expenditure, the applicant has produced copies of the receipts and bills issued by the hospital giving details of payments and the heads under which the amount has been charged. we have no reason to doubt either the bona fides or the correctness of the material produced by the applicant before the court. though the wife has also sought for certain amount over and above the amount as indicated in these bills and receipts said to be incurred towards the attendant charges, we are restricting the direction for payment to the actual amount as evidenced by the receipts and bills which totals to a sum of kb. 30,544.15 p.14. accordingly, we allow this application and direct the appellant to pay this amount of rs. 30,544.15 p. to the applicant wife.15. the learned counsel for the appellant-husband has made a request that the appellant may be permitted to pay this amount in ten equal instalments. though we are inclined to grant some time, we are not inclined to allow ten monthly instalments as the wife has already incurred this expenditure and has averred on oath that she has borrowed money for her expenditure. husband, who is an earning person, should reimburse the amount expeditiously. we grant eight weeks' time from today for the husband to pay this amount to the wife. application allowed accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

1. This is an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The appellant and respondent were married in the year 1980 as per Hindu customs and rites at Chennai. It is not in dispute that they are living separately. The husband had filed M.C. No. 684 of 1993 praying for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife. The wife also had filed M.C. No. 701 of 1992 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions were tried together by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore and while the petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage was dismissed, the petition filed by the wife seeking for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed as per the order dated 23rd March, 2001. It is as against this common judgment that the husband is in appeal.

3. The wife had sought for interim maintenance and this Court, as per order dated 23-7-2002, allowed the request of the wife for interim maintenance and had ordered payment of a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. The husband is a civil servant working as Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka in the Horticulture and Agricultural Department. There are some disputes as to the payment of this interim maintenance. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant-husband that arrears of maintenance upto the end of March 2003 has already been paid pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23-7-2002.

4. Subsequently, the wife has come up with this application praying for directions to be issued to the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards medical expenses that she has incurred in connection with some treatment she has undergone.

5. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the respondent-wife and it is stated that she had been hospitalised during the period from 2-5-2002 to 8-5-2002 at the Lakshmi Hospital', Chennai with severe pain in the stomach region and the ailment Was diagnosed as Abdominal Hysterectomy and she was advised to undergo surgery and an operation was performed by Dr. S. Devambigai. It is also asserted that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid towards professional charges towards operation and a further sum of Rs. 4,094.15 p. was incurred towards drugs and medicines and the other hospital expenses towards operation theatre charges, bed charges etc., was Rs. 6,450/-, It is also stated that the applicant was required to engage an attendant to take care of her during the period of her convalescence and she has incurred expenditure on that account also and as such a total sum of Rs. 35,000/-was spent.

6. The application was opposed by appellant-husband by filing objections. It is assented that the application is not maintainable; that the appellant is not liable to pay any amount in an application of this nature, particularly for expenses said to have been incurred towards medical treatment and as the husband is already paying the interim maintenance that has been awarded by this Court, there is no occasion for him to pay further amount over and above the interim maintenance that has been awarded by the Court. The husband has pleaded ignorance of the operation that the wife has undergone and he has not admitted the same and has disputed it. The husband has not admitted about the amount of expenditure incurred towards the treatment. The husband has stated in his objections that expenditure for treatment of the ailment mentioned by the applicant is not as high as claimed by the applicant and it is only a ruse by the applicant to extract further amount from the appellant.

7. We have heard Sri S. Janardhana, learned Counsel for the appellant, who has opposed the application. The learned Counsel submits that the couple hardly lived together for a few months and that the wife has been staying separately from the husband for the past about 20 years and there is no responsibility or liability to meet such claim on the part of the husband which are on the face of it exorbitant and not tenable.

8. Learned Counsel also submits that the appellant being a Government servant, though is entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for his family members, such reimbursement is permitted only if the treatment had been at specified Government hospital and not otherwise and the applicant having undergone treatment in a private nursing home and that too outside Karnataka, he may not be in a position to get reimbursement of medical expenses incurred towards treatment of his wife.

9. The question is not as to whether the appellant-husband can claim reimbursement of the medical expenses in respect of his wife which is only incidental, but the question is as to whether the wife can claim reimbursement of expenses incurred by her towards medical treatment from her husband.

10. Provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for support to be given by the earning spouse in favour of non-earning spouse during the pendency of proceedings before the Court. The question is as to whether medical expenses incurred by the claimant can form part of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The word 'support' has not been denned under the Hindu Marriage Act. We will have to only look at the definition as given in the dictionary or as understood in general parlance. However, we can draw inspiration from the word 'maintenance' which has been defined under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

11. Section 3(b)(i) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act defines maintenance to be inclusive of provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment. The definition here is also not an' extensive definition, but inclusive one and nevertheless specifically mentions about medical attendance and treatment. The meaning attributed to the word 'maintenance' and as defined under Section 3(b)(i) can be taken to be the meaning even under the word 'support' used under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We notice that the Delhi High Court has taken such a view in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kapoor v. Smt. Shailja Kapoor, : AIR1989Delhi10 . Justice D.P. Wadhwa of Delhi High Court has taken the view that the words 'support' and 'maintenance' are synonyms and the definition of 'maintenance' as given under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act equally applies to the word 'support' figuring in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Hon'ble Justice D.P. Wadhwa of Delhi High Court and we hold that an application of the present nature seeking for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a dependent spouse is definitely one which can be allowed in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

12. Accordingly, we hold that the application is tenable.

13. Insofar as the dispute relating to the justification for incurring expenses and the extent of such expenditure, the applicant has produced copies of the receipts and bills issued by the hospital giving details of payments and the heads under which the amount has been charged. We have no reason to doubt either the bona fides or the correctness of the material produced by the applicant before the Court. Though the wife has also sought for certain amount over and above the amount as indicated in these bills and receipts said to be incurred towards the attendant charges, we are restricting the direction for payment to the actual amount as evidenced by the receipts and bills which totals to a sum of KB. 30,544.15 P.

14. Accordingly, we allow this application and direct the appellant to pay this amount of Rs. 30,544.15 P. to the applicant wife.

15. The learned Counsel for the appellant-husband has made a request that the appellant may be permitted to pay this amount in ten equal instalments. Though we are inclined to grant some time, we are not inclined to allow ten monthly instalments as the wife has already incurred this expenditure and has averred on oath that she has borrowed money for her expenditure. Husband, who is an earning person, should reimburse the amount expeditiously. We grant eight weeks' time from today for the husband to pay this amount to the wife. Application allowed accordingly.