Maintenance | Loan EMIs, Insurance Premiums, Savings Can't Be Deducted While Calculating Husband's Income: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen, observed:

“In fact, the above payments are to be reckoned as personal savings and those items shall not be reduced from the actual income to quantify the amount of maintenance.”

The Court was considering a revision petition filed by the husband challenging the Family Court's order granting monthly maintenance of ₹6,000 to the wife and ₹3,500 to the minor child.

The husband contended that his monthly income was ₹19,574/- out of which he would require ₹5,000/- per month for his living expenses, including food and accommodation. His further contention was that he had the liability to look after his aged parents and that he also had to remit LIC premiums, vehicle loan installments, etc.

The Family Court had relied on Surendran K v Aswin K S and Another [2015 (4) KLT 682], to negate the contentions of the husband, observing that the gross income must be considered for contemplating sufficient means under Section 125 CrPC for salaried employee.

The High Court observed that availing loans, insurance policies and increasing payment towards GPF and other modes of savings are a tactic adopted by many to reduce the take home salary which in turn will reduce the quantum of maintenance amount.

“This tactics is to be deprecated, and such items shall be counted as the net income of the husband to assess the reasonable maintenance to be paid to the wife and children. Therefore, showing some amounts as deductions from the salary under the above heads, by itself, would not absolve the liability of the husband to canvass reduction in the quantum of maintenance.” the Court observed.

The Court thus observed that the revision petition is obliged to look after and maintain the wife and child under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

“The revision petitioner, being husband and father obliged to look after and maintain the wife and child, in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could not wriggle out either from payment of maintenance or from reducing the quantum, mainly on the above grounds,” the Court observed.

The Court thus dismissed the revision petition with the direction to the revision petitioner/husband to clear arrears within a period of thirty days.

Case Title: Sumesh A v Babija Balakrishnan M

Case No: RPFC 321/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 763

Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Abdul Raoof Pallipath

Counsel for Respondents: M V Amaresan, S S Aravind