Wife entitled to matrimonial amenities during pendency of divorce: SC
text_fields
Representational image.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a wife is entitled to the same standard of living during the pendency of a divorce petition as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home. This judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale while hearing cross-appeals regarding the maintenance amount for a wife during divorce proceedings.
The case involved an appeal against a December 2022 order of the Madras High Court, which had reduced the maintenance amount to Rs 80,000 per month, following a petition filed by the husband seeking a reduction. The wife, on the other hand, appealed for an increase in the maintenance amount.
The couple's marriage, solemnized in 2008 under Christian customs, had been facing estrangement, leading the husband to file for divorce under the Indian Divorce Act of 1869, alleging cruelty. During the pendency of the divorce, the wife filed an application before the family court in Chennai, seeking maintenance of Rs 2,50,000 per month, citing her husband’s substantial income and multiple sources of revenue. She also claimed that she had to leave her job in 2012 due to her husband’s objection.
The family court, after evaluating the status, standard of living, and financial resources of both parties, set the interim maintenance at Rs 1,75,000 per month. Dissatisfied with this amount, the husband appealed to the Madras High Court, which reduced the maintenance to Rs 80,000 per month.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, observed that the High Court had overlooked several key factors, such as the husband’s other sources of income and assets. It also noted that the wife had sacrificed her career for the marriage. The apex court restored the family court's order of Rs 1,75,000 per month, emphasizing that the wife, accustomed to a certain lifestyle, was entitled to maintain the same standard of living during the divorce proceedings.
The Supreme Court further affirmed that the wife should continue to enjoy the same amenities as she did in her matrimonial home, until the final settlement of the divorce case.
With IANS inputs