Supreme Court of India ruled loan repayments creating assets cannot reduce husband’s maintenance duty. Court held such financial commitments are voluntary, reaffirming statutory obligation to support estranged wife over capital investments or non essential expenditures.
The Supreme Court, reaffirming the husband’s foremost duty to maintain his wife, has ruled that loan repayments which help a husband build or acquire assets are essentially voluntary capital commitments. The Court held that such repayments cannot be treated as essential expenditure in a way that would reduce or weaken the legally enforceable maintenance obligation owed to an estranged wife.
It said,
It is well settled that repayments of loans, particularly where such repayments result in creation or acquisition of assets, partake the character of capital investment and cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure. Such financial commitments, being voluntary in nature, cannot be accorded precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance.
The Court increased the wife’s monthly maintenance from Rs 15,000 to Rs 25,000 and made it clear that a maintenance claim rooted in law cannot be diluted by the husband’s financial arrangements.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment on April 16, 2026. The appeal was filed by the wife against a judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand, which had enhanced maintenance once earlier, but according to the Supreme Court still did not adequately reflect the husband’s income and the circumstances.
Factual Backgrounds:
The parties married on 07.05.2023 in New Delhi following Hindu rites and customs. Within a year, the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parents’ residence. She alleged neglect as well as physical and mental harassment by the husband and his family.
Having no independent income, she approached the appropriate court under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking Rs 50,000 per month as maintenance. The case was filed before the court at Tanakpur. The husband did not appear, and the proceedings continued ex parte.
- The Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month.
- The High Court enhanced it to Rs 15,000 per month.
Dissatisfied, the wife filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue:
- Whether the maintenance amount fixed by the High Court was adequate in light of the husband’s actual income?
- Whether salary deductions tied to loan repayments could legitimately be used to lower his maintenance liability?
Observations of the Court:
To frame the legal purpose of maintenance, the Court revisited the underlying objective, relying on established precedents. It reiterated that:
- maintenance proceedings are meant to prevent destitution, and a wife is not required to prove absolute inability to survive (drawing from Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008));
- maintenance must be real and not illusory, enabling the wife to live with dignity (from Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015)); and
- maintenance must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the parties’ status and the husband’s financial capacity (from Rajnesh v. Neha (2021)).
The Court’s decisive holding addressed how loan deductions should be treated. The Family Court and High Court had placed significant reliance on the husband’s loan repayment deductions while computing maintenance.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach. It observed that the husband working as a Manager at Canara Bank reported a gross monthly income of Rs 1,15,670 through his affidavit. The lower courts had substantially reduced this figure by giving precedence to deductions connected to loan repayments, which the Supreme Court found impermissible.
It said,
“Repayments of loans, particularly where such repayments result in creation or acquisition of assets, partake the character of capital investment and cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure. Such financial commitments, being voluntary in nature, cannot be accorded precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance.”
The Court emphasised that where repayments lead to creation or acquisition of assets, they do not qualify as “unavoidable” expenditure in substance. If deductions are permitted in this manner, a husband could strategically take more loans and thereby gradually reduce maintenance owed to his wife.
The Court also highlighted the broader principle that maintenance is a continuing obligation and must be fulfilled in a way that enables the wife to live with dignity.
It said,
“The liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.”
While the Court acknowledged that maintenance should not impose an irrational or excessive burden on the husband, it balanced the husband’s gross income of Rs 1,15,670 against the wife’s lack of independent earnings and her forced separation within a year of marriage. On that reasoning, the Court concluded that Rs 25,000 per month was the just and reasonable amount.
Modifying the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed that maintenance be paid at Rs 25,000 per month, and that all arrears be cleared within three months. The amount is payable on or before the 7th day of every calendar month.
Case Title: Deepa Joshi Vs Gaurav Joshi
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE