Case Law Details
Deepa Joshi Vs Gaurav Joshi (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court granted leave and decided a criminal appeal arising from the judgment dated 26.06.2025 of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2025. The High Court had partly allowed the wife’s revision by enhancing the maintenance awarded by the Family Court from ₹8,000 per month to ₹15,000 per month with effect from the date of the application, i.e., 18.09.2024.
The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married on 07.05.2023 at New Delhi according to Hindu rites. After marriage, the appellant lived in the matrimonial home with the respondent and his family. According to the appellant, she was subjected to neglect and physical and mental harassment. Within a year of the marriage, she left the matrimonial home and began residing with her parents. It was stated that she had no independent source of income.
On 18.09.2024, the appellant instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the competent court at Tanakpur, District Champawat, seeking maintenance of ₹50,000 per month. Upon establishment of the Family Court at Champawat, the proceedings were transferred and registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 54 of 2024. Despite service of notice, the respondent did not appear and the matter proceeded ex parte.
By judgment dated 25.02.2025, the Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹8,000 per month after considering the respondent’s salary structure and deductions. The appellant challenged the quantum before the High Court, which enhanced the maintenance to ₹15,000 per month while retaining the commencement date of 18.09.2024. Dissatisfied with the enhancement, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The appellant submitted that the maintenance of ₹15,000 per month was inadequate and did not reflect the respondent’s actual earning capacity. It was argued that the courts below had placed undue reliance on deductions from the respondent’s salary, particularly loan repayments and financial commitments, which were voluntary and related to acquisition of assets. According to the appellant, such deductions could not diminish the respondent’s primary obligation to maintain his wife. It was also submitted that the appellant had no independent source of income.
The respondent submitted that the High Court had already enhanced the maintenance after considering the material on record and that no further enhancement was justified. It was contended that the respondent’s disposable income stood reduced due to financial liabilities and deductions, which had rightly been taken into account.
The Supreme Court held that the quantum of maintenance required limited reconsideration. Referring to earlier decisions, the Court noted that maintenance is intended to prevent destitution, should enable a wife to live with dignity, and must be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties and the husband’s financial capacity.
The Court observed that the respondent was in salaried employment with a regular source of income. It noted that the Family Court had attached considerable weight to deductions from the respondent’s salary and that the High Court had partly corrected the inadequacy by enhancing the maintenance.
The Court further observed that deductions arising from financial commitments such as loan repayments, particularly those resulting in creation or acquisition of assets, could not be treated on the same footing as necessary expenditure so as to substantially reduce the liability to pay maintenance. Such financial commitments were voluntary in nature and could not take precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation to maintain a spouse.
The Court also noted that, as disclosed in the compliance affidavit filed pursuant to its order dated 06.02.2026, the respondent was employed as a Manager with Canara Bank and was drawing a gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670. It held that repayments of loans resulting in acquisition of assets partook the character of capital investment and could not substantially dilute the respondent’s real earning capacity for determining maintenance.
Considering that the appellant had no independent source of income and had been residing separately shortly after the marriage, the Court held that maintenance should enable her to sustain herself with a reasonable degree of dignity while maintaining a fair balance between the parties’ interests.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment and enhanced the maintenance payable to the appellant-wife to ₹25,000 per month. It directed that arrears, if any, be cleared within three months and that the monthly maintenance be paid on or before the 7th day of every calendar month. The appeal and pending applications were disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (SC), (2021) 2 SCC 324
- Shamima Farooqui Shahid Khan (SC), (2015) 5 SCC 705
- Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (SC), (2008) 2 SCC 316
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2025, whereby the High Court partly allowed the revision preferred by the appellant-wife and enhanced the maintenance awarded by the Family Court from ₹8,000/- per month to ₹15,000/- per month, payable from the date of the application i.e. 18.09.2024.
3. The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married on 07.05.2023 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 record indicates that 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 has been residing separately and is stated to have no independent source of income for her sustenance.
5. In these circumstances, the appellant instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter BNSS), on 18.09.2024 before the competent court at Tanakpur, District Champawat, seeking maintenance quantified at ₹50,000/-per month. Upon establishment of the Family Court at Champawat, the proceedings stood transferred and were registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 54 of 2024. Despite service of notice, the respondent did not enter appearance and the matter proceeded ex parte.
6. The Family Court, by judgment dated 25.02.2025, 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 Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2025 before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2025, partly allowed the revision and enhanced the maintenance to ₹15,000/- per month, maintaining the date of commencement as 18.09.2024. Still dissatisfied, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of ₹15,000/- per month is grossly inadequate and does not reflect the true earnings of the respondent. It is urged that the respondent is in salaried employment and is earning a substantial monthly income, which has not been correctly appreciated by the courts below. It is further contended that the appellant has no independent source of income and is wholly dependent upon maintenance as claimed.
8. It is submitted that both the Family Court and the High Court have placed undue reliance on deductions reflected in the respondent’s salary, particularly those arising out of loan repayments and financial commitments. According to the appellant, such deductions are largely voluntary in nature and relate to acquisition of assets and, therefore, cannot be permitted to dilute the respondent’s primary obligation to maintain his wife. It is also contended that the respondent possesses sufficient means and that the maintenance awarded constitutes only a small fraction of his income, thereby rendering it wholly disproportionate.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the High Court has already enhanced the maintenance after due consideration of the material on record and no further interference for enhancement is warranted. It is contended that the respondent’s actual disposable income is reduced on account of various financial liabilities and deductions, which have been rightly taken into account. It is further submitted that the respondent does not have unlimited financial capacity and that the amount awarded is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. Having considered the submissions and the material placed on record, we are of the view that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the High Court requires a limited reconsideration.
11. The object of maintenance proceedings is well settled. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai1, 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. In Shamima Farooqui Shahid Khan2, it was emphasized that maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity. Further, in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another3, this Court reiterated that maintenance must be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband.
12. Tested on the aforesaid principles, it emerges 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. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent is in salaried employment and has a regular source of income. The Family Court, while determining maintenance, appears to have accorded considerable weight to deductions reflected in the salary, and the High Court has, to an extent, corrected the inadequacy by enhancing the amount.
13. 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.
14. It is also not in dispute that the appellant 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.
15. Insofar as the financial capacity of the respondent is concerned, it is borne out from the compliance affidavit filed pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2026 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 have taken note of certain deductions from the said income, including repayments towards loans. 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.
16. 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. We are of the opinion that a sum of ₹25,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable in the facts of the present case.
17. The impugned judgment dated 26.06.2025, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, is modified to the extent that the maintenance payable to the appellant-wife shall be enhanced to ₹25,000/- per month.
18. Arrears, if any, shall be cleared within a period of three months. The maintenance amount shall be paid on or before the 7th day of each calendar month.
19. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Notes:
1 (2008) 2 SCC 316
2 (2015) 5 SCC 705
3 (2021) 2 SCC 324
Author Bio
