The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, restores higher interim maintenance for wife in the case Dr. Rajiv Verghese Vs. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis. November 19, 2024, The decision overturned a Madras High Court order that had reduced the maintenance amount from ₹1,75,000 to ₹80,000 per month.
The case revolves around the estranged marriage of Dr. Rajiv Verghese, a renowned cardiologist, and his wife, Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis, married since 2008. Following marital discord, Dr. Verghese filed for divorce in 2019, citing incompatibility and cruelty. Meanwhile, Rose sought interim maintenance, highlighting the couple’s luxurious standard of living during their marriage and her lack of independent income after being compelled to leave her job.
Key Developments in the Case
Family Court Decision:
The Family Court in Chennai initially awarded ₹1,75,000 as monthly interim maintenance, noting Dr. Verghese’s substantial earnings from his medical practice, rental income, and other properties.
High Court Reduction:
The Madras High Court later reduced this amount to ₹80,000 per month, emphasizing that evidence of certain income streams was lacking or outdated.
Supreme Court Findings:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overlooking key evidence and findings of the Family Court regarding Dr. Verghese’s significant assets, income sources, and standard of living. The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, emphasized the wife’s entitlement to a lifestyle commensurate with that enjoyed during the marriage.
Observations by the Court
Income and Assets: The Supreme Court highlighted Dr. Verghese’s ownership of several properties and his position as the sole heir to his father’s estate.
Standard of Living: The court underscored the wife’s right to maintain her matrimonial standard of living, noting that she had sacrificed her career after marriage.
The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, emphasized the wife’s entitlement to maintain her matrimonial standard of living, stated:
“The appellant was accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home and therefore, during the pendency of the divorce petition, is entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home.”
The Court also noted that Dr. Verghese had failed to fully disclose his income, assets, and liabilities, which included significant property holdings and rental income.
Final Order
The Supreme Court restored the Family Court’s order, directing Dr. Verghese to pay ₹1,75,000 per month as interim maintenance retroactively from the filing date of the petition in 2019 until the divorce proceedings conclude.
