Loan EMIs & Family Duties Don't Reduce a Man's Maintenance

The Delhi High Court ruled that a man can’t reduce or avoid paying maintenance to his wife and child just because he’s paying EMIs or claiming financial pressure from supporting his parents. Voluntary expenses like home loans or vague claims of parental dependency don’t override a legal duty to maintain one’s family. However, the Court did reduce the maintenance slightly by adjusting school fees that the husband was already paying.

Brief Facts of the Case

A couple got married in 2015 and had a daughter in 2017. The wife left the husband’s home alleging cruelty and filed a case under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), asking for maintenance for herself and their child. The Family Court granted ₹45,000/month — ₹22,500 for the wife and ₹22,500 for the child.

The husband challenged this order, saying he couldn’t afford the amount because:

• He was already paying ₹66,000/month in EMIs for a house loan.
• He pays rent and supports his elderly parents.
• He is also paying ₹5,500/month as school fees for the child.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 125 CrPC – This section allows a wife, child, or parent to claim maintenance if they are unable to maintain themselves.
• Court relied on earlier judgments that say:
  • Only mandatory deductions (like taxes and provident fund) can be considered.
  • Voluntary EMIs, rent, or LIC payments cannot be used to reduce the amount of maintenance.
  • The legal duty of a husband to support wife and child is not optional.

Arguments of Both Sides

Husband’s Side:

• He earns ₹1,05,000/month and already has many financial responsibilities.
• His parents are financially dependent on him.
• He has taken loans worth ₹35 lakhs.
• The wife didn’t submit her income details properly.
• The maintenance order doesn’t explain the reasons clearly.

Wife’s Side (through Amicus Curiae):

• The husband is earning well and never denied his salary.
• Claims about loan EMIs or supporting parents are not backed by any documents.
• The house for which the EMI is being paid is in the father’s name, not his.
• The wife has no income, is only 12th pass, and lives with her parents.
• The husband was allegedly in an affair and even bought a house for another woman.
• She and the child are fully dependent on the maintenance.

What the Court Observed:

• The husband’s own affidavit admits he earns ₹1.05 lakh/month.
• EMIs for a home loan are not a valid excuse unless the home belongs to the husband. Here, it was his father’s property.
• There was no proof that the husband’s parents are financially dependent.
• The wife did not have any income, and no evidence showed otherwise.
• The delay in paying maintenance — even if for just one month — puts serious stress on the wife and child.
• The idea of maintenance is not charity; it’s about ensuring that a wife and child can live with basic dignity.
• The Court did acknowledge that the husband is paying ₹5,500/month for school fees and adjusted that amount.

Final Decision by the Court

• The wife will continue to get ₹22,500/month.
• The child’s maintenance was reduced to ₹17,500/month after accounting for school fees.
• The total maintenance payable is now ₹40,000/month instead of ₹45,000.
• Any amount already paid will be adjusted later when the Family Court gives its final decision.

Comments from the author of this website

From a men’s rights lens, this judgment highlights a common issue: the legal system often doesn’t take into account a man’s complete financial picture. When courts calculate maintenance, they only consider fixed deductions, such as taxes, but ignore real-life costs, including EMIs, rent, or caring for elderly parents, unless detailed documents are provided. However, in many Indian families, sons naturally support their parents — not everything is documented in writing.

Another concern is that the wife didn’t have to prove she was unable to work or earn. Being “only 12th pass” was accepted as enough proof of dependency. This creates an unfair burden on husbands, especially those in salaried positions, who feel squeezed between the law, family expectations, and financial realities. Also, even though the husband was already paying for the child’s school, the court only gave a partial adjustment — as if his effort didn’t fully count.

It feels like men are expected to keep providing without the system asking tough questions of the other side. The law gives legal protection, but sometimes fails to apply equal scrutiny to both partners’ claims and responsibilities.

Final Thoughts

The judgment reflects a strong stand on ensuring financial security for dependent wives and children, which is essential. However, it also reveals the imbalance in how courts evaluate a man’s financial reality. Voluntary liabilities like EMIs or unproven parental dependence are easily dismissed, but the emotional and financial weight they carry is very real.

While the intention behind maintenance laws is noble — to prevent destitution — there’s a need for more practical, balanced, and fact-based assessments. Otherwise, the law can unintentionally become a pressure point rather than a protection mechanism for those it impacts the most.

Read Complete Judgement Here