The court emphasized that maintenance must reflect the wife's standard of living and the husband's income sources, restoring the Family Court's original maintenance award.

J U D G M E N T

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by N DE atE eT : U 20 K 2H 4.A 1J 1U .1R 9IA month. Both parties have challenged the said order Reason:

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