NEW DELHI:<\/em> In a judgment dated April 16, 2026, delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih<\/strong>, the Supreme Court of India<\/a><\/strong> dealt with a maintenance <\/a>dispute<\/strong> between a husband and wife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The couple got married on 07.05.2023 in New Delhi, but within a year, their relationship broke down, and the wife started living separately<\/strong>. The Court recorded that she had no independent source of income.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife approached the court seeking \u20b950,000 per month as maintenance. Initially, the Family Court granted only \u20b98,000 per month, which was later increased to \u20b915,000<\/strong> by the High Court. Still dissatisfied, she moved to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband argued that his salary had several deductions like loan EMIs<\/strong> and financial liabilities, reducing his actual income<\/strong>. However, the Court did not accept this argument fully and made a strong observation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further clarified that deductions like loan repayments, especially when they help in creating assets, cannot be treated as essential expenses:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Such financial commitments, being voluntary in nature, cannot be accorded precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The judgment also highlighted the real purpose of maintenance laws, stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court emphasized that a balance must be maintained between the husband\u2019s earning capacity and the wife\u2019s needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining the husband\u2019s income of around \u20b91.15 lakh per month as a bank manager, the Court concluded that the earlier amount was too low and increased the maintenance to \u20b925,000 per month<\/strong>. It held that the wife should be able to live with dignity and in a standard similar to what she had during marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Court ordered that all arrears must be cleared within three months<\/strong> and monthly maintenance should be paid on time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This judgment again shows how courts are increasingly placing financial burden on husbands while limiting consideration of their real liabilities, reinforcing that a man\u2019s primary legal duty remains maintenance, regardless of his personal financial planning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 144, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)<\/strong><\/td> Provides legal remedy for wife, children, or parents to claim maintenance when neglected and unable to maintain themselves.<\/td> The wife filed her maintenance petition under this section seeking \u20b950,000 per month.<\/td><\/tr> Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/td> New criminal procedure law replacing CrPC, containing maintenance mechanism under Section 144.<\/td> The proceedings were governed under BNSS since the claim was filed after the new law came into force.<\/td><\/tr> Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316<\/strong><\/td> Held that maintenance law aims to prevent destitution and protect dependent spouse.<\/td> The Supreme Court cited it to reaffirm that wife need not prove complete helplessness before claiming maintenance.<\/td><\/tr> Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705<\/strong><\/td> Held that maintenance should be realistic and allow a dignified life.<\/td> Used by the Court to stress that maintenance cannot be merely symbolic or too low.<\/td><\/tr> Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Laid down that maintenance must be fair, reasonable, and based on parties\u2019 status and husband\u2019s capacity.<\/td> Relied upon while increasing maintenance to \u20b925,000 per month.<\/td><\/tr> Principle regarding Loan Repayments \/ EMIs<\/strong><\/td> Courts distinguish essential expenses from voluntary financial commitments creating assets.<\/td> Supreme Court held that loan repayments cannot substantially reduce husband\u2019s maintenance liability.<\/td><\/tr> Principle of Primary Duty to Maintain Spouse<\/strong><\/td> Legal obligation to support spouse takes priority over optional financial arrangements.<\/td> Court ruled that husband\u2019s duty to maintain wife overrides asset-building deductions from salary.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n