JUDGMENT :

(Sunder Mohan, J.)

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 r/w. Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869, against the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned VII Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in I.D.O.P No.1284 of 2019.)

1. The appellant/husband aggrieved by the order passed by the learned VII Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in I.D.O.P.No.1284 of 2019, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.1,75,000/- per month to the wife, the respondent herein, has preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/husband and Mr.Rahul Jagannathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife.

3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

a) The appellant had filed a petition for divorce in I.D.O.P.No.1284 of 2019 under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 stating that the marriage between him and the respondent herein was solemnized on 15.09.2008 in Chennai. The appellant and the respondent were divorcees from the previous marriage and got remarried in the year 2008. The appellant, out of his first wedlock, had a son. The respondent herein/wife had no issue. After marriage, it appears that the appellant and the respondent developed incompatibility. The appellant therefore filed a petition for divorce, alleging cruelty citing various incidents and prayed for dissolution of their marriage.

b) Pending divorce petition, the respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in I.D.O.P.No.1284 of 2019, praying for a maintenance of Rs.2,50,000/- per month along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs. The respondent claimed that the appellant is working as a Cardiologist in M.J. Hospital, Cochin and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1,50,000/-. That apart, he had entered into a joint venture agreement with M/s.Abad Builders, Cochin, by virtue of which he is earning a sum of Rs.20 lakhs per month. The appellant is also earning rental income from his properties in Cochin to the tune of Rs.2,73,000/- and another sum of Rs.20,000/- from his house at Chennai. The appellant owned two flats one worth Rs.1.5 Crores and other worth about Rs.70 lakhs, 3 shops worth Rs.30 to 40 lakhs and two storeyed building worth about Rs.5 Crores to Rs.6 Crores. Apart from this, he owned properties in various places in Chennai, Cochin, ECR and OMR valued at several Crores. He is the only son to his parents. His father is no more. His mother is aged about 93 years. He is managing all the properties and enjoying the income from them. She further stated that though she was educated and qualified, she was forced to leave her job after marriage and in the 10 years of her marital life, she lost touch with the subjects and has now become incapable of getting any employment. The respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home on account of the appellant's conduct and therefore, she prayed for maintenance as aforesaid.

c) The appellant on the other hand, denied all the allegations made in the petition for interim maintenance. He had stated that the averments as regards his income has to be established by the respondent and she had quoted imaginary figures. He owned a property in Porur, which is under mortgage with the bank and he is paying an EMI of Rs.49,500/- per month. He jointly owns two properties one at ECR and OMR along with the respondent and the ECR property is also under mortgage under Corporation Bank wherein he is paying a sum of Rs.34,000/- as EMI. Besides the above, he is also paying Rs.24,500/- as EMI for his car. The respondent is a Post Graduate and capable of earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. She was earlier employed and therefore, the averments that she is incapable of getting employment, is false. The appellant has to take care of his aged mother, who is sick and has to spend for her medical expenses. He had a son through the