The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the Family Court which directed the wife to pay Rs. 20k as interim maintenance to her husband during the pendency of their divorce petition and instead, ordered the husband to pay the maintenance.

Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi noted that the Family Court judge had “magnified” a small procedure and had misplaced sympathy. Whereas, the family judge had noted that the husband had undergone angioplasty and had a stent fixed which made him incapable to work.

But the appellants mainly contended that the husband had failed to prove that he was unable to earn livelihood, so the court should not have directed the wife to pay interim maintenance. Further, the only reason claimed by the husband was that he had undergone an angioplasty. It was further contended that angioplasty was not a major heart surgery that would cripple a person and the husband could still do business and work for his livelihood.

Since the matter involved payment of maintenance, the court also thought it fit to look into the income tax return assessment of the husband for the previous years produced by the wife. The court noted that the husband had an average income of six lakh to eight lakh for the previous years.

Keeping these things in mind, the court opined that the order of the Family Court could not sustain. Thus, the court set aside the impugned order of the family court and allowed the appeal preferred by the wife and ordered the husband to pay the maintenance.

Case Title: SR v. MCR