A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by a woman against a June 26, 2025 order of the Uttarakhand High Court.
The high court had partly allowed her revision petition and enhanced the maintenance awarded by the family court from ₹8,000 to ₹15,000 per month.
Why did the Supreme Court enhance the maintenance amount?
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the maintenance amount remained grossly inadequate and did not reflect the respondent's true earnings.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court said that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the high court required limited reconsideration.
The Supreme Court has held that repayments of loans, particularly those taken for the creation or acquisition of assets, cannot be treated as essential or unavoidable expenditure and given precedence over a husband's statutory obligation to maintain his wife.
Holding that a husband's duty to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing obligation, Court enhanced the maintenance payable to a woman from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month. It observed that maintenance must enable a wife to live with dignity and in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by a woman against a June 26, 2025 order of the Uttarakhand High Court. The high court had partly allowed her revision petition and enhanced the maintenance awarded by the family court from ₹8,000 to ₹15,000 per month.
The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married on May 7, 2023, in New Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the appellant lived with the respondent and his family members in the matrimonial home.
According to the appellant, the relationship soon turned strained and she was subjected to neglect as well as physical and mental harassment. Within a year of the marriage, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental home. Since then, she has been residing separately and has no independent source of income for her sustenance.
She subsequently initiated proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 125 of the CrPC). While considering the husband's salary structure and deductions, the family court awarded her maintenance of ₹8,000 per month, which was later enhanced to ₹15,000 per month by the high court.
Why did the Supreme Court enhance the maintenance amount?
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the maintenance amount remained grossly inadequate and did not reflect the respondent's true earnings. It was submitted that the respondent, a Manager with Canara Bank, earned substantially more than what had been considered by the courts below.
Her counsel contended that both the family court and the high court had placed undue reliance on deductions reflected in the respondent's salary, particularly those arising from loan repayments and other financial commitments. According to the appellant, these deductions were largely voluntary and related to asset creation, and therefore could not be allowed to dilute the respondent's primary obligation to maintain his wife.
It was further argued that the respondent possessed sufficient means and that the maintenance awarded constituted only a small fraction of his income, making it wholly disproportionate.
Opposing the plea, the respondent's counsel submitted that the high court had already enhanced the maintenance after considering all material on record and that no further interference was warranted. It was argued that the respondent's actual disposable income stood reduced due to various financial liabilities and deductions, which had rightly been taken into account.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court said that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the high court required limited reconsideration.
Referring to its earlier decisions in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008), Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015), and Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (2021), Court reiterated that maintenance laws are intended to prevent destitution and that maintenance must be fair, reasonable and sufficient to enable a wife to live with dignity.
The Bench observed that the determination of maintenance must be guided by a balanced assessment of the husband's earning capacity and the reasonable needs of the wife.
"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," Court said.
Court noted that the appellant had no independent source of income and had been residing separately shortly after the marriage. It observed that the maintenance awarded must enable her to sustain herself with a reasonable degree of dignity while ensuring that the amount remains fair and does not impose an excessive burden on the respondent.
Taking note of the fact that the respondent was employed as a Manager with Canara Bank and was drawing a gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670, Court held that ₹25,000 per month would be a just, fair and reasonable amount of maintenance in the facts of the case.
Court, therefore, held that deductions on account of asset-generating loan repayments cannot be permitted to substantially dilute a husband's real earning capacity while determining maintenance.
Case Title: Deepa Joshi Vs Gaurav Joshi
Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment: April 16, 2026
