Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on November 19, 2024, said that a woman accustomed to a particular standard of living in her matrimonial home is entitled to similar amenities when determining interim maintenance during divorce proceedings.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale allowed an appeal by a woman against the Madras High Court's order which reduced the interim maintenance fixed as Rs 1.75 lakh by the family court to Rs 80,000 per month for her.

The court found the High Court had erred in reducing the quantum of maintenance to Rs 80,000 per month.

The High Court has considered only two sources of income for the respondent. Firstly, the sum of Rs 1.25 lakh that he earns from working as a Cardiologist at the Hospital. Secondly, the rent amount he and his mother receive from a property, of which the High Court has stated that he receives half the amount only, the bench noted.

"However, the High Court has not dealt with the findings of the Family Court wherein the respondent is said to own a number of worthful properties and the fact that he is the only legal heir of his father. The Family Court found that the respondent is accruing all the incomes from the properties owned by his mother. The High Court has not dealt with the aspect of the number of properties owned by the respondent and looked at the rental income from one property," the bench said.

It also pointed out that the Family Court also noted that the respondent was found to be in possession of a school and could not substantiate his claim that the school was running in losses. 

"Therefore, the High Court has overlooked certain aspects relating to the income of the respondent which were looked at by the Family Court. Further, it is also on record that the appellant is not working as she sacrificed her employment after the marriage. The appellant was accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home and therefore, during the pendency of the divorce petition, is also entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home," the bench said.

Both the wife and the husband filed separate petitions challenging the High Court's order of December 1, 2022.

As per facts of the matter, the marriage between the appellant wife and respondent husband was solemnised on September 15, 2008 according to Christian customs. The respondent husband had one son from his previous marriage and there were no issues from this marriage. As the relations between the parties got estranged, on March 19, 2019, the respondent husband filed a petition under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 stating that the parties had developed incompatibility. He sought da ivorce, alleging cruelty, citing various incidents.

During the proceedings, the wife filed a plea for interim maintenance and claimed that the husband was a Cardiologist in Cochin and drew a salary of Rs 1,50,000 per month. Plus, she claimed that the husband had further income from a joint venture, by virtue of which he was earning a sum of Rs 20 lakh per month. Further, she claimed, he was earning rental income from his properties in Cochin to the tune of Rs 2,73,000 and Rs 20,000 from his house in Chennai.

Additionally, she claimed that he owned several other properties. The wife also stated that she had a MSc degree in Clothing and Textile and she worked in 2012 for about ten months. However, the husband was against her working and she was forced to leave her job.

The bench noted that the Family Court upon perusal of records and evidence on both sides in order to fix interim maintenance, found that it was clear that after desertion, the appellant wife had no other place to reside and thus, chose to seek shelter with her mother-in law, who is aged 93 years. Later on, considering the health of the aged mother-in-law, she shifted to her elder brother's place.

Court also noted that the Family Court also observed that the respondent husband failed to produce his income tax returns. However, documents produced by the appellant and evidence of both parties in this regard reflected the fact that the respondent was a renowned expert in cardiology and had a number of worthful properties and was the only legal heir to his father who had passed away. His mother was 93 years old. He was accruing all the incomes from the properties owned by his mother and himself and was also in possession of a school, though it was stated to be running in losses. However, the respondent did not come forward with any proof to this effect.

Court also pointed out that the Family Court also noted that the respondent specifically stated that when the parties were residing together, he engaged two maids on 24x7 basis to aid them in their domestic work and maintenance and the appellant was accustomed to these comforts. The Family Court therefore compared the status, standard of life, income source, properties, possession, rights and liabilities of the respondent and found that the appellant could not be denied the privileges enjoyed by the respondent.

The High Court, on the other hand, while allowing the appeal of the husband and modifying the order of the Family Court noted that the Bank statements on record pertained to a few months in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, and those did not assist them in determining the present income of the appellant and did not take those into consideration for the purpose of deciding the quantum of maintenance.

The High Court held that the respondent, being a Cardiologist, earned a monthly income of Rs 1,25,000, which was established and that he and his mother received a rent of Rs 2,73,301 per month, of which he received only half amount. Based on these two considerations, the High Court concluded that the appellant wife established the respondent’s income to at least Rs 2,50,000 per month and thus determined that the reasonable amount of interim maintenance to be one third of the respondent’s income which was Rs 80,000 per month.

Case Title: Dr Rajiv Verghese Vs Rose Chakkarammankkil Francis