Duty To Maintain Spouse Primary; Loan Repayments For Asset Creation No Ground To Reduce Maintenance Liability: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that deductions arising out of financial commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where they contribute towards creation of assets, cannot be treated on par with necessary expenditure so as to substantially reduce the liability of maintenance. The Court emphasized that the obligation to maintain a spouse is a primary duty and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih enhanced the maintenance payable to a wife from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month, holding that loan repayments leading to acquisition of assets partake the character of capital investment and cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure.

Background

The case arose from maintenance proceedings initiated by the appellant-wife under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking ₹50,000 per month after she began residing separately from her husband within a year of marriage and had no independent source of income. The Family Court initially awarded maintenance of ₹8,000 per month, which was later enhanced by the Uttarakhand High Court to ₹15,000. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the wife approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the wife contended that the courts below had placed undue reliance on deductions shown in the husband's salary, particularly loan repayments and other financial commitments, which diluted his real earning capacity. The husband, on the other hand, argued that his disposable income was reduced due to financial liabilities and that the amount fixed by the High Court was reasonable.

Court's Observations

The Court reiterated that the purpose of maintenance is to prevent destitution and to enable a spouse to live with dignity consistent with the status enjoyed during the subsistence of marriage. It stressed that while courts must balance the financial capacity of the husband and the needs of the wife, voluntary financial commitments cannot be given precedence over statutory maintenance obligations.

Noting that the husband was employed as a Manager in a bank with a gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670, the Court held that deductions towards loans resulting in asset creation cannot substantially dilute his real earning capacity for determining maintenance.

"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 liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements," the Court observed.

The Court noted no independent source of income and has been residing separately shortly after the marriage.

"The maintenance awarded must therefore enable her to sustain herself with a reasonable degree of dignity, consistent with the status of the parties. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the determination remains fair and reasonable and does not impose an excessive burden upon the respondent. The exercise is one of achieving a just balance between competing considerations," the Court stated.

 Holding that a just balance must be maintained between competing considerations, the Court concluded that ₹25,000 per month would be fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the circumstances of the parties. It accordingly modified the High Court judgment to enhance the maintenance amount and directed that arrears be cleared within three months, with monthly payments to be made on or before the 7th day of each calendar month.

Case : Deepa Joshi v Gaurav Joshi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Click here to read the judgment