During Pendency Of Divorce Petition, Wife Is Entitled To Enjoy Same Amenities As She Was Enjoying In Her Matrimonial Home: SC
The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Family Court granting higher amount of maintenance to wife and clarified that the wife is accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home and 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.
The two appeals, before the Top Court, arose out of the impugned order of the Madras High Court reducing the maintenance amount to be paid to the wife from Rs.1.75 lakh per month to Rs 80,000 per month. Both parties had challenged the said order.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale, said, “Therefore, the High Court has overlooked certain aspects relating to the income of the respondent which were looked at by the Family Court. Further, it is also on record that the appellant is not working as she sacrificed her employment after the marriage.”
Advocate Suvidutt M.S represented the appellant while Advocate Ranjay Kumar Dubey represented the Respondent.
The marriage between the appellant wife and respondent husband was solemnized in 2008 according to Christian customs. The respondent husband had one son from his previous marriage and there were no issues from this marriage. As the relations between the parties got estranged, the respondent husband filed a petition for divorce in the year 2019 under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 stating that the parties had developed incompatibility and also alleged cruelty while citing various incidents.
In the interregnum, the wife approached the Family Court praying for maintenance of Rs.2. 5 lakh per month along with litigation expenses. It was her case that the is a Cardiologist in MJ Hospital, Cochin and draws a salary of Rs.1,50,000 per month and he also gets income from a joint venture and has also been earning rental income from his properties.The Family Court, after evaluating the status, standard of living, income and assets of the parties, held that Rs.1.75 lakh per month would be a reasonable amount to be paid to the wife as interim maintenance. However, the Madras High Court reduced this amount. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
The Bench took note of the fact that 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.The respondent husband, before the Family Court failed to produce his income tax returns. “However, documents produced by the appellant and evidence of both parties in this regard would clearly reflect the fact that the respondent is a renowned expert in cardiology and has a number of worthful properties and is the only legal heir to his father who has passed away”, it added.
However, while reducing the amount, the High Court held that the respondent, being a Cardiologist, earned a monthly income of Rs.1.25 lakh and it was established that he and his mother received a rent of Rs.2,73,301 per month, of which he received only half amount.
“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 Bench said while noticing that the High Court had considered only two sources of income for the respondent and it didn’t deal 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 Bench further held, “The appellant 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.”
Thus, allowing the appeal of the appellant wife, the Bench set aside the order of the Madras High Court and restored the order of the Family Court.
Cause Title: XX v. YY [Neutral Citation- 2024 INSC 876]
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Suvidutt M.S
Respondent: Advocate Ranjay Kumar Dubey
