The Uttarakhand High Court has increased the monthly maintenance payable to the wife and three-year-old child of an Indian Army sepoy from Rs 12,000 to Rs 25,000, ruling that voluntary payroll deductions for retirement plans cannot be used to lower alimony obligations.
Justice Alok Mahra issued the decision on August 17, modifying an April 18 family court order. Under the updated directive, the respondent must deposit the enhanced monthly amount on or before the tenth day of each month.
In its ruling, the court addressed arguments regarding post-retirement savings, stating that voluntary deductions aimed at building assets or securing future funds cannot override or diminish a family’s legitimate maintenance rights. Citing Supreme Court legal principles, the court affirmed that an individual’s financial capacity for maintenance cannot be evaluated solely on net salary remaining after elective deductions.
Legal Dignity and Earning Capacity
The court noted that the purpose of maintenance extends beyond basic survival, aiming to ensure that dependents maintain a standard of living reflecting the spouse’s financial status. Given that the woman has no independent source of income and is caring for a minor child, the bench found the earlier consolidated sum of Rs 12,000 inadequate when compared against the husband’s gross monthly pay.
Financial Arguments and Claims
Advocate Gaurav Kandpal, representing the wife, challenged the initial family court order on the grounds that it overlooked the husband’s earning potential. The court was informed that the sepoy draws a gross monthly salary of approximately Rs 88,588, including a band pay of Rs 31,400. Kandpal highlighted that the woman was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and now manages routine expenditures for food, clothing, and healthcare, alongside upcoming schooling costs for the toddler.
Defending the soldier, advocate Nitin Kamal argued that the man’s net monthly earnings hover around Rs 50,000 due to voluntary post-retirement contributions amounting to nearly 40 percent of his earnings. Kamal contended that these allocations restricted his client’s financial ability to pay a higher sum, a position the high court subsequently dismissed.
