“Wife entitled to maintain matrimonial home lifestyle during pendency of divorce petition”; SC directs husband to pay Rs.1,75,000 monthly interim maintenance

Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal revolving around an order of reduction of maintenance by Madras High Court, whereby the husband prayed for further reduction of monthly interim maintenance amount and wife prayed for an enhancement; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., found errors in evaluation made by the High Court and pointed out that it was on record that the wife had sacrificed her employment after the marriage and was accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home. Therefore, during the pendency of the divorce petition, she is also entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home.

Background:

The parties got married in 2008 according to Christian customs. This was the husband’s second marriage. However, due to relations between then getting estranged, the husband petitioned for divorce in 2019 under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 stating that the parties have developed incompatibility and alleging cruelty.

During the pendency of divorce petition, the wife filed an application in Family Court, Chennai, praying for maintenance of Rs 2.5 Lakhs per month, along with litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 2 Lakhs. The wife claimed that the husband is a cardiologist earning Rs 1.5 Lakhs per month and has several assets and incomes from rental properties and owned properties etc. The wife further claimed 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.

The Family Court, after its evaluations, ascertained Rs 1.75 Lakhs per month as a reasonable amount to be paid to the wife as maintenance and issued directions to the husband for the same. Aggrieved, the husband challenged this order before Madras High Court. The High Court via its impugned order, reduced the interim maintenance to Rs 80,000, effective from the date of the petition until disposal of the divorce proceedings.

Court’s Assessment:

Perusing the matter, the Court observed that the Family Court took note of the evidence on both sides in order to fix interim maintenance, found that after desertion, the wife had no other place to reside and thus, chose to seek shelter with her 93-year-old mother-in law. Later, considering the health of the mother-in-law, the wife started residing with her elder brother.

The Division Bench further took note that the Family Court had observed that the husband failed to produce his income tax returns, and documents produced by the wife and other evidence produced by the parties clearly reflected the fact that the husband is a renowned expert in cardiology and has several properties of worth and is the only legal heir to his father who had passed away. Given that his mother is 93 years old, the husband had been accruing all the income from the properties owned by his mother and himself. The Court took note that the Family Court compared the status, standard of life, income source, properties, its possession, rights and liabilities of the husband and found that the wife cannot be denied the enjoyment of the privileges as enjoyed by the husband.

Meanwhile, the High Court, after its evaluation of the husband’s income, concluded that his income was at least Rs 2.5 Lakhs per month. The High Court had further taken note of the wife sacrificing her employment after the marriage and determined that the reasonable amount of interim maintenance to be one third of the husband’s income which was Rs.80,000.

Taking note of the afore-stated evaluations, the Division Bench in the instant appeal found that the High Court erred in reducing the quantum of maintenance. The High Court had considered only two sources of the husband’s income- his income as cardiologist and rent from property jointly owned with his mother. However, the High Court did not deal with the aspect of the number of properties owned by the husband and looked at the rental income from one property. Furthermore, the High Court did not take into consideration that the husband was the sole legal heir of his father. The High Court also did not consider that the husband was found to be in possession of a school and could not substantiate his claim that the school was running in losses.

Hence, the Court allowed the appeal of the wife and set aside the order of the Madras High Court and restored the order of the Family Court. The husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000 per month as interim maintenance.