He's a cardiologist with two maids. The court still restored her maintenance.

When a Cardiologist’s Salary Wasn’t Enough: The Supreme Court Restores Maintenance

Dr. Rajiv Verghese, a cardiologist in Chennai, and Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis married in 2008 under Christian customs. He had a son from a previous marriage; they had no children together. By 2019, the marriage had broken down. Dr. Verghese filed for divorce under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, citing cruelty and incompatibility. Rose, who had given up her job after marriage, sought interim maintenance during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. The Family Court, Chennai awarded her a certain amount per month. The Madras High Court reduced that amount. The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on 19 November 2024 by a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, restored the Family Court’s order. The stakes were not just the quantum of maintenance, but the principle: what counts as “income” when a spouse has multiple assets, inheritance prospects, and a lifestyle that the other spouse sacrificed a career to share?

The Marriage, the Divorce, and the Maintenance Battle

The couple married on 3 July 2008. Rose, a working professional, left her employment after the wedding. The matrimonial home in Chennai was comfortable — Dr. Verghese himself stated that during their cohabitation, he employed two maids on a 24x7 basis. That detail, noted by the Family Court, became a key indicator of the standard of living Rose was accustomed to.

On 19 March 2019, Dr. Verghese filed IDOP No. 1284 of 2019 before the Family Court, Chennai, seeking divorce. Rose responded by filing I.A. No. 1 of 2019 under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking interim maintenance pendente lite. She argued that Dr. Verghese had substantial income from multiple sources: his salary as a cardiologist at a hospital, a joint venture with a builder, rental income from properties in Cochin and Chennai, and that he was the sole heir to his father’s estate, which included a school and other assets.

What the Family Court Found

The Family Court, Chennai, evaluated the husband’s income, properties, and standard of living. It did not rely on a single salary slip. It looked at the entire picture. The Family Court awarded Rose a certain amount per month as interim maintenance from the date of the petition until the disposal of the divorce proceedings. The Court noted that Dr. Verghese had multiple income streams: his hospital salary, rental income from properties in Cochin and Chennai, his interest in a joint venture with a builder, and his inheritance prospects from his father’s estate, which included a school. The Court also considered that Rose had sacrificed her career and was entitled to maintain the standard of living she had enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

The High Court’s Selective Math

Dr. Verghese appealed to the Madras High Court in C.M.A. No. 1539 of 2022. On 1 December 2022, the High Court partially allowed the appeal. It reduced the interim maintenance. How did it arrive at that figure? The High Court considered only two sources of income: Dr. Verghese’s hospital salary and half of the rental income from one property in Cochin. It ignored the rental income from the Chennai property, the joint venture with the builder, the inheritance prospects, and the school ownership. It then applied a mechanical one-third formula to this truncated income base.

The High Court’s order effectively treated Dr. Verghese as a salaried doctor with one rental property. The Family Court had found otherwise. The wife appealed to the Supreme Court for restoration of the original amount. The husband cross-appealed, seeking a further reduction.

The Supreme Court’s Correction

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath, found that the High Court had committed a clear error. The Bench observed that the High Court had selectively considered only some of the income sources that the Family Court had identified. It had ignored the rental income from the Chennai property, the joint venture with the builder, the inheritance prospects, and the school ownership. The Supreme Court held that when determining interim maintenance, the court must consider all income sources of the respondent-spouse — salary, rental income from all properties, inheritance prospects, business interests, and overall asset portfolio. It cannot pick and choose.

The Court also emphasised a second principle: a wife who sacrificed her employment after marriage and was accustomed to a certain standard of living in the matrimonial home is entitled, during the pendency of divorce proceedings, to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in the matrimonial home. The Family Court had correctly applied this principle. The High Court had ignored it.

THE PLAY: When seeking or opposing interim maintenance, ensure the court considers all income sources — salary, rental income from every property, business interests, inheritance prospects, and any other assets — not just the most obvious ones. A selective assessment is an error of law.

The Doctrine That Mattered: Comprehensive Assessment, Not Selective Math

The ratio decidendi of this judgment is twofold. First, a court determining interim maintenance must conduct a comprehensive assessment of the respondent-spouse’s income sources. It cannot ignore findings made by the trial court about multiple properties, business interests, or inheritance prospects. Second, the wife’s entitlement is not limited to bare survival; she is entitled to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, especially if she sacrificed her career for the marriage.

This is not a new principle. It is a restatement of settled law. But the Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary because the High Court had deviated from it. The High Court had applied a mechanical one-third formula to a truncated income base. The Supreme Court restored the Family Court’s order, which had been based on a detailed evaluation of all income sources.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates, this judgment is a reminder that an appellate court cannot re-evaluate evidence selectively. If the trial court has found that a spouse has multiple income sources, the appellate court must consider all of them. A reduction based on ignoring some sources is unsustainable.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is about asset disclosure. If you are a high-net-worth individual with multiple properties, business interests, and inheritance prospects, a court will look at your entire portfolio — not just your salary. The fact that you are the sole heir to a family business or estate will be factored into maintenance calculations. The judgment also underscores that a spouse who gave up a career for the marriage is entitled to maintain the lifestyle she enjoyed, not just a subsistence allowance.

The Bottom Line

When determining interim maintenance, courts must consider all income sources of the earning spouse — salary, rental income from all properties, inheritance prospects, business interests, and overall asset portfolio — and cannot mechanically apply a one-third formula to a selectively truncated income base; the wife who sacrificed her career is entitled to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.