LexDR. RAJIV VERGHESE versus ROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.