DR. RAJIV VERGHESEversusROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS

         [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1312 : 2024 INSC 876

                  Dr. Rajiv Verghese
                           v.
            Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis
         (Civil Appeal No(s). 12546-12547 of 2024)
                       19 November 2024
      [Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Respondent (husband) filed a petition for divorce under Section
10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 before Family Court. Appellant
(wife) filed an application for maintenance in the same proceeding
and the Family Court by an Order granted a monthly interim
maintenance of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Five
Thousand only) to her. This order was challenged before the High
Court by the Respondent. The High Court modified the order of
the Family Court by reducing the monthly interim maintenance to
Rs. 80,00,000/- (Eighty thousand only). Before the Supreme Court,
the Appellant sought enhancement of the maintenance amount
while Respondent sought further reduction in the maintenance
amount already granted.
The issue was as to whether the High Court was right in reducing
the monthly interim maintenance amount in the given facts.

                           Headnotes†

Interim maintenance – The factors that Courts have to keep
in mind while fixing its quantum :
Held: The Family Court while fixing the quantum of interim
maintenance took into consideration factors such as – (a) whether
the wife owns a separate place of residence; (b) whether the wife
was employed or did she have to sacrifice her career owing to
the marriage; (c) the profession of the husband and his salary;
(d) husband’s income other sources; (e) whether the husband
was the sole legal heir of his parents; (f) the number of worthful
properties held by the husband and the rental income therefrom;
and (g) the lifestyle or standard of amenities the wife enjoyed while
married. [Para 7-8]
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                           1313

         Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis


     Interim maintenance – Whether the High Court’s order
     modifying the monthly interim maintenance requires
     interference?
     Held: The High Court while modifying the Family Court’s order
     considered only two sources of respondent’s income and overlooked
     (a) other streams of income of the respondent, such as income
     from other worthful properties and a school; (b) the sacrifice of
     employment made by the appellant post marriage; and (c) the
     entitlement of appellant to the same standard of living as in her
     matrimonial house during the pendency of divorce proceeding – The
     order of High Court set aside and order of Family Court granting
     monthly maintenance of Rs.1,75,000 restored. [Para 9-12]

                                List of Acts
     Indian Divorce Act, 1869

                             List of Keywords
     Divorce; Interim maintenance; Reducing the quantum of maintenance

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12546 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2022 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 1539 of 2022

                         Appearances for Parties
     Ms. Arundhati Katju, Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Rahul J. Krishnan,
     Ranjay Kumar Dubey, Mrs. Sudershani Ray, Mrs. Drishti Mittal,
     Parth Tiwari, Kaustubh Singh, Suvidutt M.S., Advs. for the appearing
     parties.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

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
1314                                                     [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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 month. Both parties have challenged the
     said order 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.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                      1315

         Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis


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 the respondent husband 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. His mother is running the age of 93.
     He is accruing all the incomes from the properties owned by his
     mother and himself and is also found to have been in possession
     of a school, though it is stated to be running in losses. However,
     the respondent did not come forward with any proof to this effect.
8.   The Family Court also noted that the respondent specifically stated
     that when the parties were residing together, he engaged two maids
     on 24×7 basis to aid them in their domestic work and maintenance
     and the appellant is accustomed to these comforts. The Family
     Court therefore compared the status, standard of life, income source,
     properties, its possession, rights and liabilities of the respondent and
     found that the appellant cannot be denied to enjoy the privileges as
     enjoyed by the respondent. Upon this consideration, the Family Court
1316                                                     [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


     found it reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One
     Lakh and Seventy Five Thousand only) as interim maintenance to
     be paid to the appellant by the respondent per month from the date
     of the petition being 03.07.2019 till the disposal of the main divorce
     petition being OP 1284 of 2019.
9.   The High Court, on the other hand, while allowing the appeal of the
     husband and modifying the order of the Trial Court noted that the
     Hospital in Kerala agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees
     One Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand only) per month as salary to
     the respondent husband in 2017. Further, the joint venture agreement
     is of the year 2015 and there is no evidence to suggest that the
     respondent was still receiving the said amount from the builder and
     that the sale consideration received by him cannot be treated as
     ‘monthly income’. The Bank statements on record pertained to a few
     months in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 and the High Court stated
     that those do not assist them in determining the present income
     of the appellant and did not take those into consideration for the
     purpose of deciding the quantum of maintenance.
10. The High Court held that the respondent, being a Cardiologist,
    earned a monthly income of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and
    Twenty Five Thousand only) is established and that he and his
    mother received a rent of Rs.2,73,301/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy
    Three Thousand and Three Hundred One only) per month, of which
    he received only half amount. Based on these two considerations,
    the High Court concluded that the appellant wife established the
    respondent’s income to at least Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh
    and Fifty Thousand only) per month. The High Court took note of the
    fact that the appellant sacrificed her employment after the marriage
    and determined that the reasonable amount of interim maintenance
    to be one third of the respondent’s income which was Rs.80,000/-
    (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month.
11. 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
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                           1317

            Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis



     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 Family Court also noted that
     the respondent was found to be in possession of a school and could
     not substantiate his claim that the school was running in losses.
     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. 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.
12. 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.
13. The appeal of respondent husband is accordingly dismissed in view
    of the above reasoning.

     Result of the case: Civil Appeal No. 12547 of 2024 arising out
                          of SLP(C) No. 19922 of 2023 is allowed and
                          Civil Appeal No. 12546 of 2024 arising out of
                          SLP(C) No. 4109 of 2023 is dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.)