The Supreme Court of India has held that a husband’s financial commitments, such as loan repayments for asset creation, cannot be used to dilute his primary legal obligation to provide maintenance to his wife. While hearing an appeal for enhancement of maintenance, the Court modified a High Court of Uttarakhand order, increasing the monthly maintenance amount from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000.
The primary issue before the Court was whether voluntary deductions from a husband’s salary, specifically those aimed at acquiring assets or repaying loans, should be prioritized over the statutory obligation to maintain a spouse under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Background of the Case
The appellant and the respondent were married on May 7, 2023, in New Delhi. Within a year, the appellant left the matrimonial home, alleging neglect and physical and mental harassment. Since then, she has resided at her parental home without an independent source of income.
On September 18, 2024, the appellant instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS before the competent court at Tanakpur. The Family Court, Champawat, initially awarded her ₹8,000 per month on February 25, 2025, after considering the husband’s salary and deductions. On revision, the High Court of Uttarakhand enhanced this to ₹15,000 per month. Dissatisfied with this quantum, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant: Counsel for the appellant argued that ₹15,000 was “grossly inadequate” and did not reflect the respondent’s true earnings. It was contended that the courts below placed “undue reliance” on deductions in the respondent’s salary. The appellant maintained that these deductions were voluntary, related to asset acquisition, and should not permit the respondent to “dilute” his primary obligation.
Respondent: The respondent’s counsel submitted that the High Court had already enhanced the amount after considering the material evidence and that no further interference was warranted. It was argued that the respondent’s “actual disposable income” was significantly reduced due to financial liabilities and that the awarded amount was reasonable.
Court’s Analysis
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the object of maintenance is to prevent destitution and ensure the wife can live with dignity. The Court referred to established principles from Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, and Rajnesh v. Neha.
The Court noted that the respondent, a Manager with Canara Bank, earns a gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670. Critically, the Court addressed the nature of salary deductions:
“Deductions arising out of financial commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where they contribute towards creation of assets, cannot be placed on the same footing as necessary expenditure so as to substantially reduce the liability of maintenance.”
The Bench further clarified that such repayments partake the character of “capital investment” rather than “essential or unavoidable expenditure.” The judgment emphasized:
“The obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing duty… deductions on account of asset-generating repayments cannot be permitted to substantially dilute the respondent’s real earning capacity.”
Decision
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order, enhancing the maintenance to ₹25,000 per month, effective from the date of the application (September 18, 2024). The Court directed that any arrears must be cleared within three months and that future payments be made by the 7th of each calendar month.
Case Details
Case Title: Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15662 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: April 16, 2026
