The Uttarakhand High Court has increased the monthly maintenance payable by a State Bank of India employee to his estranged wife from Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000, ruling that personal debt liabilities cannot relieve a husband of his legal obligation to support his spouse under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Court Rejects Defense of Personal Debt
In an August 4 order, Justice Alok Mahra set aside a November 2021 family court order and allowed the woman’s revision petition. The High Court emphasized that a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance that reflects her husband’s income, financial capacity, and standard of living, allowing her to live with dignity.
The court rejected the husband’s argument that repayments for personal loans should lower his maintenance obligations, clarifying that personal financial commitments do not override statutory duties toward a spouse.
Financial Capacity and Family Circumstances
The woman married her husband in May 2017 according to Hindu rites before leaving the matrimonial home due to domestic disputes and relocating to live with her sister. Represented by advocate Raj Kumar Singh, she petitioned for higher maintenance, arguing that the initial award of Rs 10,000 was disproportionate to her husband’s monthly salary of approximately Rs 83,154 as an officer at the State Bank of India. She also disputed that her husband was solely responsible for maintaining his mother.
Appearing for the husband, advocate Bhuwan Bhatt argued that statutory deductions along with vehicle and festival loan repayments reduced his client’s net monthly income to around Rs 53,000. He maintained that these loans were taken during the marriage for household benefits.
The court noted that the husband’s father receives a monthly pension of about Rs 30,000 and that his two brothers are employed in government service. Consequently, the court held that the plea of heavy family liabilities could not be used to reduce statutory spousal support.
Wife’s Employment Status and Monthly Allowances
Addressing the husband’s contention that his wife holds Master of Science and Bachelor of Education degrees and was capable of supporting herself, the court observed that she is currently unemployed and lacks an independent income stream. The woman explained that previous credits in her bank account were monetary gifts from her parents rather than earnings. She also expressed willingness to reunite, though her husband had refused to take her back.
The court further highlighted that the husband had admitted before the family court to spending approximately Rs 15,000 per month on his own personal expenses. Taking into account his financial standing and the standard of living the wife is entitled to maintain, the High Court determined that the existing maintenance amount required an upward revision.
