The Supreme Court has maintained wife is entitled for the same standard of living during divorce proceedings as she experienced in her matrimonial home.
By PC Bureau
New Delhi
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court reinstated a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹1.75 lakh monthly interim maintenance to his wife during divorce proceedings. The Court underscored the principle that a wife is entitled to maintain the same standard of living during divorce proceedings as she experienced in her matrimonial home.
“The appellant (wife) 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,” observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
The case involved a marriage solemnized in 2008, with divorce proceedings initiated by the husband in 2019, citing incompatibility and cruelty. The wife, who had sacrificed her career after marriage, sought ₹2.5 lakh as interim maintenance, citing the husband’s substantial income from his medical practice, property rentals, and business ventures.
While the Family Court ordered ₹1.75 lakh as maintenance, the High Court reduced it to ₹80,000, considering only limited income sources. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, noting its failure to account for the husband’s extensive property holdings and income sources.
The Court remarked, “The High Court erred in reducing the quantum of maintenance… it has not dealt with the findings of the Family Court wherein the respondent is said to own several valuable properties and accrue income from them.”
Reinstating the Family Court’s order, the Supreme Court emphasized that maintenance should reflect the dependent spouse’s lifestyle and the earning spouse’s financial ability.
“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 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 SC bench observed.
During the divorce proceedings, the wife, who had given up her career for the marriage, sought interim maintenance of ₹2.5 lakh per month, arguing that the husband’s substantial income from his medical practice, property rentals, and other ventures justified her request. The Family Court acknowledged her claims and directed the husband to provide ₹1.75 lakh monthly as interim maintenance.
However, the relief was short-lived as the High Court later reduced the amount to ₹80,000, a decision that failed to fully consider the husband’s numerous income sources and property holdings. Dissatisfied, the wife approached the Supreme Court.
The apex court, after examining the evidence, reinstated the Family Court’s order, restoring the ₹1.75 lakh monthly maintenance. In its judgment, the Court emphasized the principle that a wife is entitled to maintain the same standard of living during divorce proceedings as she enjoyed in her matrimonial home. This landmark decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring financial equity and fairness in such cases.
