While a divorce petition is ongoing, the wife has the right to the same comforts she had in her marital home, according to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court confirmed the Family Court’s decision to increase the maintenance amount for the wife. It stated that the wife is used to a certain lifestyle in her marital home and should continue to enjoy similar comforts during the divorce process. The two appeals brought to the Supreme Court were against a Madras High Court ruling that reduced the maintenance from Rs.1.75 lakh to Rs.80,000 per month. Both parties contested this decision. The judges, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, noted that the High Court missed important details about the respondent’s income that the Family Court had considered. They also pointed out that the wife had given up her job after marriage.
Advocate Suvidutt M.S represented the wife, while Advocate Ranjay Kumar Dubey represented the husband. The couple married in 2008 following Christian traditions. The husband had a son from a previous marriage, and there were no children from this marriage. As their relationship deteriorated, the husband filed for divorce in 2019, citing incompatibility and instances of cruelty. During the interim period, the wife went to the Family Court asking for maintenance of Rs. 2.5 lakh each month, plus legal costs. She claimed that her husband is a Cardiologist at MJ Hospital in Cochin, earning Rs. 1,50,000 monthly, and also has income from a joint venture and rental properties. After reviewing the living conditions, income, and assets of both parties, the Family Court decided that Rs. 1.75 lakh per month was a fair amount for her interim maintenance. However, the Madras High Court lowered this amount. Upset by this decision, the wife took her case to the Apex Court.
The Bench noted that the Family Court, after examining the evidence from both sides, found that the wife had no place to live after being deserted and had to stay with her 93-year-old mother-in-law. The husband did not provide his income tax returns to the Family Court. However, the documents and evidence presented by the wife showed that the husband is a well-known cardiology expert with valuable properties and is the sole legal heir to his deceased father.
The High Court reduced the maintenance amount, stating that the respondent, a Cardiologist, earned Rs.1.25 lakh monthly and received half of a total rent of Rs.2,73,301 with his mother. The Bench noted, “The High Court made a mistake by lowering the maintenance to Rs.80,000 per month.” They pointed out that the High Court only considered two income sources and ignored the Family Court’s findings about the respondent owning valuable properties and being his father’s sole legal heir. The Family Court determined that the respondent benefits from the income generated by his mother’s properties.
The Bench also stated, “The appellant was used to a certain lifestyle in her marriage, so she should continue to enjoy similar living standards during the divorce process.” Consequently, the Bench upheld the wife’s appeal, overturning the Madras High Court’s decision and reinstating the Family Court’s order.
Cause Title: XX v. YY [Neutral Citation- 2024 INSC 876]
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Suvidutt M.S
Respondent: Advocate Ranjay Kumar Dubey
