The Supreme Court held that voluntary deductions such as provident fund and ESPP contributions cannot reduce income while fixing child maintenance, enhancing it to ₹1.5 lakh per month.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has enhanced the maintenance payable for two minor children in a matrimonial dispute to ₹1,50,000 per month, holding that voluntary deductions from a parent’s salary — such as provident fund contributions and employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs) — cannot be excluded from income while assessing maintenance, since, unlike statutory taxes, they are ultimately savings that accrue to the payer’s own benefit [Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma].
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment on August 10, 2026, partly allowing the wife’s appeal against a Delhi High Court order and raising the children’s maintenance from ₹1,25,000 to ₹1,50,000 per month, while also enhancing the wife’s own maintenance in view of her cancer treatment.
The distinction between compulsory and voluntary deductions
The central legal question was how a paying parent’s disposable income is to be computed. The High Court had recorded the husband’s monthly income at approximately ₹4,50,000, from which it deducted ₹1,64,856 towards what it described as compulsory deductions — income tax, provident fund, professional tax and the like — leaving roughly ₹2,80,000.
The Supreme Court disagreed with lumping provident fund and ESPP contributions in with genuinely compulsory charges. Drawing the line between a tax that leaves the payer’s hands for good and a contribution that returns to him as savings, the Bench held:
“We have considered the submissions of the Appellant that the deductions are voluntary in nature. We find that deductions of Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately benefits that would be passed on to the Respondent-husband. Unlike Income Tax payment or professional taxes which are mandatory taxes, PFs and ESPPs are not permanent charges but rather will accrue into the account of the Respondent-husband which can be withdrawn by the depositor in the future.”
The practical consequence is significant: a parent cannot depress the income figure on which maintenance is calculated by pointing to sums he is, in effect, saving for himself. Only genuinely irrecoverable outgoings — statutory taxes — reduce the disposable income available for a child’s support.
The wife’s illness weighed in the balance
The Bench was also conscious of the appellant-wife’s medical condition. She had been diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer in August 2024, during the pendency of the appeal, and the Delhi High Court had, by an interim order of December 10, 2024, directed the husband to pay her ₹20,000 per month.
Noting that this interim maintenance for the wife had not been carried into the High Court’s final order, and taking account of her cancer treatment and the fact that both children reside with and are cared for by her, the Court enhanced her maintenance to ₹30,000 per month.
The revised award
The Court accordingly fixed the children’s maintenance at ₹1,50,000 per month — ₹75,000 per child — with effect from January 1, 2025, and clarified that this would not preclude the wife from seeking a further enhancement should circumstances change. It directed the husband to comply within three months. On the disputed ownership of a Mahindra XUV500, the Court recorded that no further direction was required, the husband having already undertaken before the High Court to execute the documents transferring the vehicle to the wife.
Background
The parties were married in New Delhi in December 2004 according to Sikh rites, and have two sons, born in 2011 and 2014. The husband left the wife and children in June 2018, following which she filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty before the Family Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi, along with an application for interim maintenance for herself and the children.
By an order of January 2021, the Family Court declined maintenance to the wife herself — noting her own net monthly income of about ₹91,000 against the husband’s ₹2,70,000, and that she was paying the EMIs on the couple’s flat — but awarded maintenance for the children, which the Delhi High Court affirmed in March 2021. The High Court had observed at that stage that the assessment of maintenance involves reasonable approximation rather than mathematical exactitude.
The litigation thereafter proceeded through successive rounds of enhancement, allegations and cross-applications. The wife sought increases to keep pace with rising school fees at the children’s school and documented monthly expenditure on them exceeding ₹1,66,000; the husband sought reductions, greater visitation, and the return of the vehicle and certain personal documents, and disputed the claimed expenses. In July 2024, the Family Court enhanced the children’s maintenance to ₹50,000 per month per child and held the husband liable for their school fees.
The contempt thread
Running alongside the maintenance dispute was a contempt proceeding arising from the husband’s failure to pay. After the wife’s cancer diagnosis and the December 2024 interim direction in her favour, the High Court in February 2025 issued a suo motu contempt notice against the husband on his admission of non-compliance, rejecting his contention that she had not produced official verification of her illness. His challenge to the interim medical direction was dismissed by the Supreme Court in May 2025.
When the arrears remained unpaid, the High Court observed in July 2025 that his conduct amounted to aggravated contempt and directed his personal presence; after repeated non-appearance, it went so far as to request the police in Hyderabad to secure his attendance, before he ultimately appeared and tendered an unconditional apology. By its final order of August 2025 — the order under challenge — the High Court had enhanced the children’s maintenance to ₹1,25,000 and closed the contempt proceedings, and by a later clarification granted the husband six months to clear the accrued arrears. It was that quantum which the Supreme Court has now revised upward.
Case Title: Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma [Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31815-31816 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Citation: 2026 INSC 822
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE