Summary of this article
Supreme Court has prioritised spousal maintenance over loan repayments
Loan repayments for assets not treated as essential expenses
Maintenance has been increased to Rs 25,000 monthly
The Supreme Court has held that financial commitments such as loan repayments, especially those linked to asset creation, cannot be used to reduce a person’s legal obligation to pay maintenance to a spouse. The Court has underlined that the duty to maintain a spouse is primary and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.
A Bench of Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih has delivered the ruling while hearing a dispute between a husband and wife over the quantum of maintenance. The Supreme Court has increased the maintenance amount payable to the wife from Rs 15,000 to Rs 25,000 per month.
Case History
The case, Deepa Joshi vs Gaurav Joshi, has emerged as a result of maintenance proceedings taken by the wife under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. She has demanded Rs 50,000 per month, claiming that she has not had any independent source of income and has been living separately with her husband within a year of marriage.
The Family Court has initially awarded Rs 8,000 per month as maintenance. This amount has later been increased to Rs 15,000 by the Uttarakhand High Court. The wife has then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the amount has remained inadequate.
Before the Supreme Court, the wife has contended that the Family Court and the Uttarakhand High Court have relied heavily on deductions reflected in the husband’s salary, including loan repayments and other financial liabilities. She has argued that these deductions have not accurately represented his real earning capacity.
In his defence, the husband has presented to the Supreme Court that his disposable income has been greatly reduced by the current financial turmoil and that the maintenance fixed by the Uttarakhand High Court has been fair.
Court’s Observations On Maintenance
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the purpose of maintenance has been to prevent destitution and ensure that a spouse can live with dignity, in line with the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.
The Court has observed that while determining maintenance, a balance has to be created between the financial capacity of the husband and the needs of the wife. However, it has been clarified that voluntary financial commitments cannot take precedence over statutory obligations.
It has been noted that the husband has been employed as a bank manager with a gross monthly income of Rs 1,15,670. The Bench has stated that deductions towards loan repayments, particularly those that contribute to asset creation, cannot be equated with necessary or unavoidable expenses.
The Supreme Court has said that loan repayments used to create assets are like investments, not necessary expenses. So, they cannot be used to reduce maintenance.
Balance Between Capacity And Need
The Supreme Court has emphasised that maintenance must allow the dependent spouse to sustain herself with a reasonable degree of dignity. At the same time, it has been said that the determination should remain fair and should not impose an excessive burden on the paying party.
It has also been noted that the wife has not had an independent source of income and has been residing separately shortly after the marriage. These factors have been taken into account by the Supreme Court while reassessing the maintenance amount.
Highlighting the need to strike a balance between competing considerations, the Supreme Court has concluded that Rs 25,000 per month has been fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court has changed the decision made by the Uttarakhand High Court and has increased the maintenance to Rs 25000 per month. It has been ordered that the arrears be cleared in three months.
The Supreme Court has further instructed that future monthly payments must be made on or before the 7th day of each calendar month.
