Supreme Court of India
Rajiv Varghese vs Rosy Chakkrammakkil Francis on 19 November, 2024
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
2024 INSC 876
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. …………………. OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.4109 OF 2023)
DR. RAJIV VERGHESE …APPELLANT
VERSUS
ROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL
FRANCIS …RESPONDENT
With
Civil Appeal No…………………of 2024
(arising out of SLP(C) No.19922 of 2023)
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 amount to be
paid to the wife from Rs.1,75,000/-(Rupees One Lakh
and Seventy-five thousand only) per month to
Signature Not Verified Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per
Digitally signed by
month. Both parties have challenged the said order
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2024.11.19
19:12:43 IST
Reason:
SLP(CIVIL) NO.4109 OF 2023 Page 1 of 9
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
SLP(CIVIL) NO.4109 OF 2023 Page 2 of 9
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.
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
SLP(CIVIL) NO.4109 OF 2023 Page 3 of 9
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
SLP(CIVIL) NO.4109 OF 2023 Page 4 of 9
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
SLP(CIVIL) NO.4109 OF 2023 Page 5 of 9
enjoy the privileges as enjoyed by the respondent.
Upon this consideration, the Family Court 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
SLP(CIVIL) NO.4109 OF 2023 Page 6 of 9
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/-
SLP(CIVIL) NO.4109 OF 2023 Page 7 of 9
(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 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
SLP(CIVIL) NO.4109 OF 2023 Page 8 of 9
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.
…………………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
…………………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
SLP(CIVIL) NO.4109 OF 2023 Page 9 of 9