SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1066

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Dr. Rajiv Verghese – Appellant
Versus
Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 12546 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 4109 of 2023) With Civil Appeal No. 12547 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19922 of 2023)
Decided On : 19-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv. Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Adv. Mr. Rahul J Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Ms. Dirishti Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sudershani Ray, Adv. Mr. Suvidutt M.S., AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Quantum of maintenance must be compatible with standard of living of estranged wife in her matrimonial home.

Headnote:

Indian Divorce Act, 1869 – Section 10(i) – Quantum of maintenance – High Court reduced maintenance amount to be paid to wife from Rs.1,75,000/- per month to Rs.80,000/- per month – Family Court found that appellant is getting income from properties owned by his mother – High Court has not dealt with aspect of number of properties owned by appellant and looked at rental income from one property – Family Court also noted that appellant was found to be in possession of a school and could not substantiate his claim that school was running in losses – High Court has overlooked certain aspects relating to income of appellant which were looked at by Family Court – It is also on record that respondent is not working as she sacrificed her employment after marriage – Respondent was accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home and during pendency of divorce petition, is also entitled to enjoy same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home – Appellant husband directed to pay sum of Rs.1,75,000/- per month as interim maintenance as per order of Family Court. (Paras 7, 11, 12 and 13)

Facts of the case:

These are two appeals arising out of impugned order dated 01.12.2022 passed by Madras High Court in C.M.A. No.1539 of 2022, whereby High Court has reduced maintenance amount to be paid to wife from Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy-five thousand only) per month to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month. Both parties have challenged order of High Court. Husband is praying for further reduction of maintenance amount and the wife is praying for enhancement of the same.

Findings of Court:

High Court has erred in reducing quantum of maintenance to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month. High Court has considered only two sources of income for respondent. High Court has not dealt with findings of Family Court wherein respondent is said to own a number of worthful properties and fact that he is the only legal heir of his father.

Result : Appeal of wife allowed and appeal of husband dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. These are two appeals arising out of the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the Madras High Court in C.M.A. No.1539 of 2022, whereby the High Court has reduced the maintenance amount to be paid to the wife from Rs.1,75,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Seventy-five thousand only) per month to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month. Both parties have challenged the said order of the High Court. The husband is the appellant in appeal @ SLP(C) No.4109/2023 and the wife is the appellant in appeal @ SLP(C) No.19922/2023. The husband is praying for further reduction of the maintenance amount and the wife is praying for enhancement of the same. For our purpose, the wife will be referred to as the ‘appellant’ and the husband as the ‘respondent’.

3. The factual background of the present case is that the marriage between the appellant wife and respondent husband was solemnised on 15.09.2008 according to Christian customs. The respondent husband had one son from his previous marriage and there are no issues from this marriage. As the relations between the parties got estranged, on 19.03.2019, the respondent husband filed a petition for divorce being IDOP No.1284 of 2019 under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 stating that the parties have developed incompatibility. He alleged cruelty while citing various incidents and prayed for divorce.

4. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the appellant wife herein filed an application being I.A No.1 of 2019 in IDOP No.1294 of 2019 before the Family Court, Chennai praying for maintenance of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) per month along with litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). The wife claimed that the husband is a Cardiologist in MJ Hospital, Cochin and draws a salary of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) per month. Plus, he has further income from a joint venture, by virtue of which he is earning a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) per month. Further, he is earning rental income from his properties in Cochin to the tune of Rs.2,73,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Seventy Three Thousand only) and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) from his house in Chennai. Additionally, it was claimed that he owns several other properties. The wife stated that she has a M.Sc. 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.

5. The Family Court, after evaluating the status, standard of living, income and assets of the parties, held that Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Five Thousand only) per month would be a reasonable amount to be paid to the wife as interim maintenance and directed the respondent husband herein to pay the same, vide order dated 14.06.2022. Aggrieved by this, the respondent husband filed an appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1539 of 2022 before the Madras High Court challenging the same. The Madras High Court partially allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 01.12.2022 by reducing the interim maintenance amount to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month, effective from the date of the petition, i.e. 03.07.2019 until the disposal of the divorce proceedings. It is this order which has given rise to the present appeals.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.

7. The Family Court upon perusal of records and evidence on both sides in order to fix interim maintenance, found that it is 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, the appellant wife started residing with her elder brother. Family Court also observed that the respondent husband failed to produce his income tax returns. However, documents produced by the app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top