The Hindu : National : Husband’s phone can be disconnected if dependent wife does not pay bill: court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Apr 22, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Husband’s phone can be disconnected if dependent wife does not pay bill: court

J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI: The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (MTNL) is empowered to disconnect a telephone in the name of the husband for non-payment of bill for telephone in the name of dependent wife, the Supreme Court held on Monday.

“In the case of a wife who is a housewife and is economically dependent on her husband, obviously the telephone bills in connection with the line in her name are being paid by her husband and not by herself. Hence, we have to adopt a purposive construction in this case and not go by the literal rule of interpretation,” said a Bench of Justice H.K. Sema and Justice Markandey Katju upholding disconnection of husband’s telephones for arrears of payment of wife’s telephone.

Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Katju, however, said: “There can be a case where the husband and wife are living in the same house and both have independent sources of income, and the wife herself is paying for the bills in connection with the telephone line in her own name, whereas the husband is paying for the bills of his own telephone line. In such a case, for non-payment of the bill of the wife the telephone line of the husband cannot be disconnected.”

The case

In the instant case, appellant Surjit Singh had two telephones in his Rajouri garden residence in the capital and another telephone in his business premises. His wife (who was dependent on him) had a separate telephone connection and since there was default in payment, the MTNL disconnected the two telephones of her husband.

A single judge and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed his petition challenging the disconnection. The present appeal by Mr. Singh is directed against this judgment. He contended that he and his wife were two separate legal entities, and he could not be penalised for the fault of his wife.

He said Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraphic Rules says, “If, on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls of phonograms or other dues from the subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex service rented by him, may be disconnected.”

He submitted that in view of this rule the telephone lines in the name of the appellant could not have been disconnected because of non-payment of dues in respect of the line in the name of his wife.

The Bench said: “It is true that on a literal interpretation of Rule 443, we would have to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. However, in our opinion, in this case, the literal rule has not to be adopted, because we have also to see the intention of the rule.”

It said: “We can utilise the Mimansa Rules of Interpretation in interpreting Rule 443 in a purposive sense. Hence the telephone line in the name of the person who is really paying the bills in connection with the telephone line in the name of another person who is economically dependent on the former can be disconnected for non-payment of bills in connection with the telephone line in the name of the latter. Such an interpretation would effectuate the intention of Rule 443, which is that telephone bills should be paid promptly.”

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National