Loan Repayments Not Expenditure To Reduce Liability To Pay Maintenance To Wife: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by the wife seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance to be paid by her husband.

Update: 2026-04-18 12:50 GMT

While enhancing the amount of maintenance in favor of a wife, the Supreme Court has held that repayments of loans resulting in the creation or acquisition of assets are voluntary in nature and cannot be accorded precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance.

The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal arising out of the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, partly allowing the revision preferred by the appellant-wife and enhancing the maintenance awarded by the Family Court from ₹8000 per month to ₹15000 per month.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “However, 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.”

“However, it is well settled that repayments of loans, particularly where such repayments result in creation or acquisition of assets, partake the character of capital investment and cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure. Such financial commitments, being voluntary in nature, cannot be accorded precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance”, it added.

Advocate Rajesh Pathak represented the Appellant, while AOR Harsimran Kaur Rai represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband got married in the year 2023 at New Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Following the marriage, the appellant resided at the matrimonial home along with the respondent and his family members. The relationship between the parties did not remain cordial, and, according to the appellant, she was subjected to neglect and acts of physical as well as mental harassment during her stay in the matrimonial home. Within a year of their marriage, the appellant was forced to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental residence. Since then, she had been residing separately and was stated to have no independent source of income for her sustenance.

The appellant instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the competent court seeking maintenance quantified at ₹50,000 per month. The Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to the appellant, taking into account the respondent’s salary structure and the deductions reflected therein. Aggrieved by the quantum so fixed, appellant preferred a Criminal Revision before the High Court. The High Court enhanced the maintenance to ₹15,000 per month. Still aggrieved, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Dealing with the law relating to maintenance, the Bench explained that the determination of maintenance must be guided by a balanced assessment of the earning capacity of the husband and the reasonable needs of the wife. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the respondent is in salaried employment and has a regular source of income. The Family Court, while determining maintenance, appeared to have accorded considerable weight to deductions reflected in the salary, and the High Court, to an extent, corrected the inadequacy by enhancing the amount.

Considering that the appellant has no independent source of income and has been residing separately shortly after the marriage, the Bench held that the maintenance awarded must 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”, it added.

Referring to the compliance affidavit, the Bench noted that the respondent is employed as a Manager with Canara Bank and is drawing a gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670. The Courts below had taken note of certain deductions from the said income, including repayments towards loans. The Bench was of the view that the repayments of loans, particularly where such repayments result in the creation or acquisition of assets, partake the character of capital investment and cannot be accorded precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance.

“The obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing duty, which must be discharged in a manner that enables the wife to live with dignity and in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage. Viewed thus, deductions on account of asset-generating repayments cannot be permitted to substantially dilute the respondent’s real earning capacity for the purpose of determining maintenance”, the Bench held, while enhancing the maintenance amount payable to the appellant-wife to ₹25,000 per month.