During Divorce Proceedings, Wife Entitled To Enjoy Same Life Amenities She Was Enjoying In Matrimonial Home : Supreme Court

While awarding Rs.1.75 Lakhs as monthly interim maintenance to a wife during the divorce proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that the wife is entitled to the same standard of living during the divorce proceedings as what she enjoyed during the marriage.

“The appellant (wife) 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 Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale also noted that the wife was not working as she had sacrified her employment after marriage. It restored the Family Court's order to the Husband to grant Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) monthly maintenance to the wife during the divorce proceedings.

The appellant/wife and respondent/husband married on September 15, 2008, as per Christian customs. The husband had a son from a previous marriage, and there were no children from the current marriage.

The husband filed for divorce in 2019, citing incompatibility and cruelty. During divorce proceedings, the appellant/wife sought interim maintenance of ₹2,50,000 per month. She claimed the husband's significant income from medical practice, property rentals, and business ventures.

The Family Court ordered the respondent (husband) to grant Rs. 1,75,000/- maintenance to the wife during the divorce proceedings.

The High Court, however, reduced the maintenance amount to Rs. 80,000/-.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court observed that the High Court had not fully considered evidence about the husband's income and property holdings.

“We find that the High Court has erred in reducing the quantum of maintenance to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month. The High Court has considered only two sources of income for the respondent. Firstly, the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty-Five Thousand only) 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. 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 court observed.

The court laid emphasis on the wife's right to maintain her matrimonial standard of living during the divorce process. In other words, the maintenance awards must reflect the dependent spouse's accustomed lifestyle and the earning spouse's financial capability.

“Consequently, we allow the appeal of the appellant wife and set aside the order of the Madras High Court dated 01.12.2022 and restore the order of the Family Court. The respondent husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Five Thousand only) per month as interim maintenance as per the order of the Family Court dated 14.06.2022.”, the court ordered.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv. Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Adv. Mr. Rahul J Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mrs. Sudershani Ray, Adv. Mrs. Drishti Mittal, Adv. Mr. Parth Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Mr. Suvidutt M.s., AOR

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Sudershani Ray, Adv. Mrs. Drishti Mittal, Adv. Mr. Parth Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Mr. Suvidutt M.s., AOR Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv. Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Adv. Mr. Rahul J Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, AOR

Case Title: DR. RAJIV VERGHESE VERSUS ROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS, C.A. No. 012546 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Click here to read/download the judgment