DEBIPAM BHOWMICK Vs. ALPANA BHOWMICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner husband sought divorce against the respondent wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent wife moved an application in that petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act). That application was dismissed because the learned Court came to the conclusion that wife has independent source of income. Hence not entitled to any maintenance. The revision filed against that order was also dismissed. However, in the review application filed by the wife, the learned Additional District Judge granted her litigation expenses.

(2.) Thereafter the respondent wife due to illness was admitted in the MoolChand Khairati Ram Hospital. She submitted the medical bill for reimbursement to the employer of the petitioner. The employer of the husband had issued letter to the said hospital that medical bill be submitted directly to it for reimbursement. However, subsequently when the bill was not directly paid by the employer of the husband the wife made the payment and claimed reimbursement from husband's employer. It is this claim of medical reimbursement which has been objected by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that since wife's application for maintenance has already been dismissed being employed and earning, she is not entitled to medical reimbursement. At best she can opt for medical reimbursement from her own employer i.e., "The Statesman". Her employer also has a scheme for medical reimbursement for its employees. Since the respondent was not living with the petitioner hence she cannot claim medical reimbursement from petitioner's employer. There is a term and condition in the form stipulating that only dependent wife living with the petitioner could claim medical reimbursement. Admittedly respondent is neither dependent nor living with the petitioner hence she does not fulfill the conditions of eligibility. Reimbursing the amount of Rs. 26,466.82 in such eventuality would be wholly unauthorised. It would amount to unjust expense on the public ex-chequer. Petitioner cannot give false declaration that the respondent was living with him. She has of her own volition separated since 1988. Therefore, her application for reimbursement of medical expenses should be rejected.

(3.) By the impugned order dated 21st July,1995 the learned Additional District Judge allowed respondent's application. He held that she was entitled to medical reimbursement from the employer of the petitiner husband. It is against this order that the present petition has been preferred. Petitioner has urged that if medical expenses of the respondent are reimbursed it would add to the tax liability of the petitioner. Secondly it would amount to mis-representation and fraud on the statute because in that case petitioner would be forced to give false declaration that the respondent is residing with him. Moreover, her application for maintenance having been dismissed, she is not entitled to medical reimbursement.