Repayment of loans can't be considered to dilute maintenance amount for wife: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said repayments of loans for creation or acquisition of assets by a man cannot be treated as essential or unavoidable expenditure to be accorded precedence over his statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance of his wife.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih emphasised that the liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.

"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 bench said.

Enhancing the monthly maintenance amount of a woman to Rs 25,000 from Rs 15,000 per month, the court said 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.

The woman assailed the Uttarakhand High Court's order of June 26, 2025, which partly allowed her revision petition against the family court's order that directed her husband to pay Rs 8000 per month only.

She claimed within one year of marriage on May 07, 2023 at New Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental residence due to neglect and acts of physical as well as mental harassment.

On her plea filed under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the family court took into account her husband’s salary structure and the deductions reflected therein to award her meagre sum of Rs 8,000 per month.

The HC enhanced it Rs 15,000 per month.Seeking further enhancement, her counsel submitted the amount for maintenance was grossly inadequate and did not reflect the true earnings of her husband, a manager at Canara Bank.

The counsel said the deductions are largely voluntary in nature and related to acquisition of assets and, therefore, cannot be permitted to dilute his primary obligation.Defending the HC's order, the husband's counsel submitted his actual disposable income was reduced on account of various financial liabilities and deductions, which have been rightly taken into account.

Allowing the woman's plea, the bench said 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.The bench held that 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 court noted the husband was employed as a Manager with Canara Bank and was drawing a gross monthly income of Rs 1,15,670.Moreover, it found the woman has no independent source of income and has been residing separately shortly after the marriage.

"The maintenance awarded must therefore 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. The exercise is one of achieving a just balance between competing considerations,'' the bench said, enhancing the maintainance amount to Rs 25,000 per month.

The bench pointed out in Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai (2008), this court held that the provision is intended to prevent destitution and that a wife is not required to establish absolute inability to survive before claiming maintenance.

The court also noted in Shamima Farooqui Vs Shahid Khan (2015), it was emphasized that maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity.

Further, in Rajnesh Vs Neha and Another (2021), this court reiterated that maintenance must be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband.