Provident Fund & ESPP Deductions Are Ultimately Benefits: Supreme Court Asks Man To Pay Enhanced Maintenance To Children
The Supreme Court was considering the appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution against the impugned judgment passed by the Delhi High Court.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
While observing that deductions of Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately benefits that would be passed on to the depositor, the Supreme Court has asked a man to pay enhanced maintenance to his children after taking note of the expenses for the cancer treatment of the wife, who has been looking after both the children residing with her.
The Apex Court was considering the appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution against the impugned judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in a contempt case which partly enhanced the child maintenance to Rs 1,25,000 for both children and closed the contempt proceedings against the Respondent-husband.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “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PFs and ESPPs are not permanent charges but rather will accrue into the account of the Respondent-husband which can be withdrawn by the depositor in the future.”
Senior Advocate Priya Hingorani represented the Appellant while AOR Tatini Basu represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The marriage between the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband was solemnised in 2004 in accordance with Sikh rites in New Delhi. Out of the said wedlock of the parties, two sons were born. Eventually, the matrimonial relationship between the parties deteriorated and in 2018, the Respondent-husband left the Appellant-wife and their two children. The Appellant-wife then instituted a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court.
Along with the divorce petition, the Appellant-wife filed an application under Section 24 and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, seeking interim maintenance pendente lite of Rs 2,00,000 per month. The Additional Principal Judge disposed of the application for interim maintenance, declining to grant pendente lite maintenance to the Appellant but granted the same for the minor children. Therein it was observed that the Appellant-wife's net monthly income was Rs 91,000 compared to the Respondent-husband's net income of Rs 2,70,000. The Family Court, thus, awarded Rs 40,000 per child.
The Respondent-husband challenged the Family Court’s order before the Delhi High Court but the interim maintenance quantum was affirmed. Applications were filed by both the husband and wife.The Additional Principal Judge disposed of all three pending applications, finding that the husband was liable to pay the enhanced school fee of the children. With effect from April 2024 till the disposal of the divorce petition, the maintenance of the children was enhanced to Rs 50,000 per month per child. The Respondent-husband failed to clear the arrears, leading the Delhi High Court to observe that his conduct amounted to aggravated contempt, directing his personal presence. The impugned clarification order was passed by the High Court directing the Respondent-husband to pay all arrears within six months while continuing monthly payments of Rs 1,25,000 without any break.
Reasoning
One of the arguments raised by the appellant was that the deductions as shown by the Respondent-husband included voluntary contributions such as ESPPs, which could not be treated as compulsory deductions to reduce monthly income for the purposes of maintenance. The Bench noted that the monthly income of the husband was estimated to be Rs 4,50,000 (approx.). Out of this monthly income, Rs.1,64,856 was required to be deducted towards compulsory deductions, including income tax, provident fund, professional tax, and he was left with Rs.2,80,000 (approx.) every month.
The Bench held that PFs and ESPPs can be withdrawn by the depositor in the future. “We are also mindful of the expenses for the cancer treatment of the Appellant-wife who is looking after both children who reside with her”, it added.
The Bench thus disposed of the appeal by enhancing the monthly maintenance for both children to a total of Rs 1,50,000 (Rs 75,000 per child) effective from January 1, 2025. “This will not preclude the Appellant from seeking enhancement as and when there are change in circumstances”, the Bench clarified.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 822)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Priya Hingorani, Advocates Naseem Ahmed, Aditi Ladda, AOR Chandra Bhushan Prasad
Respondent: AOR Tatini Basu, Advocate Esha Thawal