maintenance and support

Medical expenses and maintenance

By Rakesh Shukla

In a judgment regarding medical reimbursement to a wife by her husband, the Supreme Court observed that the terms ‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ include means of living, food, clothes, shelter, recreation, health, proper care, nursing and medical assistance during sickness. Therefore, a wife is entitled to get medical reimbursement from her husband as part of maintenance

The issue of maintenance has dogged the efforts of women caught in situations of matrimonial conflict. Some of the problem areas have been the time taken by the courts to decide matters and pass final orders in civil suits asking for maintenance, the extremely low amounts granted as maintenance, the upper limit of Rs 500 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that prevailed till an amendment in 2001 gave discretion to the magistrate to fix the amount depending on the facts and circumstances.

The issue of powers to the magistrate to grant interim maintenance from the date of application was addressed by the apex court in an earlier judgment (see ‘Maintenance for wife and children: Final and interim’, InfoChange News and Features, November 2008). In the present era of escalating medical expenses, a recent judgment, Rajesh Burman versus Mitul Chatterjee, 2008 (14) SCALE 372, pronounces on the important issue of whether medical expenses can be claimed by the wife from the husband as part of maintenance.

Rajesh Burman and Mitul Chatterjee’s marriage was solemnised on January 26, 2000, in Kolkata. Thereafter, the wife, Mitul, moved to Mumbai where her husband was working and started staying in the matrimonial house.

According to Rajesh, on June 16, 2001, he was stuck in office doing work and could not get home on time. At around 9.30, Mitul came to the office and abused her husband for being late and not returning home on time. Rajesh said that when he got home at 1.30 am, his wife became furious and violently abusive in the presence of her father and grandparents. Rajesh wanted to walk out to allow his wife’s anger to cool, and hurriedly made his way down the staircase. He said his wife tried to prevent him from leaving, lost her footing, and, being drowsy and clad in a long nightgown, fell down the stairs, injuring her left arm and fracturing it. According to Rajesh, his wife’s injuries were the result of an accident.

After 10 days, on June 26, 2001, alleging that her husband had pushed her and caused her injuries, Mitul lodged a complaint at the police station against her husband and in-laws for the offence of cruelty under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), causing grievous hurt (Section 325 of the IPC), criminal breach of trust (Section 406 of the IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 of the IPC). Rajesh and his mother were arrested.

Rajesh approached the high court for the criminal case to be quashed, and obtained a stay of proceedings. Mitul was operated twice on June 19/20, 2001, and May 2, 2002. She filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on July 1, 2001, in the court of the district judge, Alipore, 24 Parganas, in West Bengal, asking for a divorce, return of goods in the custody of her husband, and alimony. She also filed an application in the suit asking for payment of Rs 382,262.75 as medical reimbursement.

Rajesh contested the claim, saying that the application for medical reimbursement was not maintainable, that his wife was gainfully employed, had already received money from the insurance company, and that he was not liable to pay her anything. The trial judge rejected his contentions and held that Mitul was entitled to medical reimbursement. The amount of Rs 76,181, received from the insurance company, was deducted and the court directed the husband to pay Rs 306,181 to his wife.

Rajesh approached the high court, which deducted Rs 21,668 spent on airfare, plus a further amount of Rs 62,155, and ordered that the remaining amount be paid to Mitul. The husband challenged the high court’s decision and the matter reached the apex court.

It was argued that Rajesh was not responsible for his wife’s injuries. That the injuries were the result of an accident, and that Mitul herself was responsible for them. Therefore, the lower courts’ orders to pay the money were invalid. A preliminary objection was raised that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (the Act), which was applicable to the couple, did not provide for payment of such expenses and that an application for medical reimbursement was not maintainable. It was contended that the wife had suppressed the fact that she was gainfully employed, and had initially not disclosed receipt of money from the insurance company. That her intentions were to harass her husband and that she had claimed airfare which had been deducted by the high court. And, that under the circumstances she was not entitled to any relief from the courts.

According to Mitul, her husband had pushed her down the stairs to cause injuries that could have resulted in her death; fortunately, she survived. It was argued that the airfare charges that the high court had deducted were in connection with medical treatment; it did not mean that the wife was not entitled to medical expenses as granted by the lower courts. It was submitted that the terms ‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ were very wide and included medical expenses, and that the courts had been right in ordering that she receive medical reimbursement.

The Supreme Court observed that the wife had instituted proceedings for the dissolution of marriage in a competent court, as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The court dismissed the preliminary objection on behalf of the husband and held that the wife’s application for medical reimbursement was maintainable. Adverting to the provisions of the Act, the court noted that Section 36 provides for the district court to order interim maintenance during the continuance of legal proceedings. Further, Section 37 provides for the grant of permanent alimony, either as a gross sum or monthly or periodical payment, for maintenance and support of the wife. It held that under the scheme of the Act, “the two terms ‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ are comprehensive in nature and of wide amplitude”.

Referring to the definition of ‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ in Black’s Law Dictionary, the judgment observes that the terms include means of living, food, clothes, shelter, recreation, health, proper care, nursing and medical assistance in times of sickness. The court rejected the argument that assistance of earlier judgments interpreting ‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act could not be taken while interpreting the terms under the Special Marriage Act. It observed that the earlier judgments clearly held that ‘maintenance’ and ‘support’ were synonymous and constitute the “act of maintaining”, including residence, food, recreation, education and medical treatment.

Applying the interpretation enunciated to the present case, dismissing the husband’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that Mitul Chatterjee was entitled to medical expenses and had the right to get medical reimbursement from her husband Rajesh Burman.

(Rakesh Shukla is a Supreme Court lawyer)

InfoChange News & Features, March 2009