Voluntary Borrowings Like Personal Loans, EMIs Can't Override Claim For Maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that voluntary borrowings such as personal loans and EMIs cannot override claim for maintenance of dependent wife and children.

The Court was considering an Appeal filed by a Husband against an order of the Family Court whereby an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Wife seeking maintenance for herself and children was allowed.

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed,"...Deductions such as house rent, electricity charges, repayment of personal loans, premiums towards life insurance, or EMIs for voluntary borrowings do not qualify as legitimate deductions for this purpose. These are considered to be voluntary financial obligations undertaken by the earning spouse, which cannot override the primary obligation to maintain a dependent spouse or child."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Ravi Kumar.

Facts of the Case

The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 2009, and one male child was born out of the said wedlock who is in the care and custody of the Respondent-Wife. Due to several differences and acrimonies between the parties, they started living separately in 2020. The Husband filed a Divorce Petition before the Family Court and in the said Petition, the Wife filed an Application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking interim maintenance at the rate of ₹ 30,000/- per month. The Court directed the Husband to pay a sum of ₹15,000/- per month.

Counsel for the Husband submitted that the Family Court passed the impugned order based on conjectures and surmises, as it failed to consider the fact that the Appellant has been consistently paying the EMIs for a flat they bought jointly and premium for the Mediclaim policy. It was further contended that the Family court erred in interpreting the mandate under Section 24 of the HMA, as a spouse who is well-qualified should not be expected to remain idle and milk out the benefits from the other spouse by seeking benefits in the nature of pendente lite alimony. The Counsel further submitted that the Appellant is a contractual employee, and the presumption that he is a person of immense means is erroneous.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, observed that it is trite law that while computing the income of a spouse for the purpose of determining the quantum of maintenance under matrimonial statutes, only statutory and mandatory deductions such as income tax and compulsory contributions to provident fund or similar schemes, are to be considered as permissible deductions

It rejected the claim of the Husband that EMIs and other loan obligations erode his take-home income and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari (1970).

"....it is evident that the Courts have consistently held that a person cannot wriggle out of his/her statutory liability to maintain his/her spouse and dependents by artificially reducing his/her disposable income through personal borrowings or long-term financial commitments undertaken unilaterally. Maintenance is not to be assessed based on the net income after such personal deductions, but rather on the “free income” that reflects the actual earning capacity and standard of living of the party concerned," the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly rejected.

Cause Title: Subhash vs. Mamta @Raksha (2025:DHC:4397-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Ravi Kumar, Advocate Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Suman Kumar, Advocate Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate Shubhanshu Singh, Advocate Nisha

Click here to read/ download Order