Loan repayments for assets acquisition not deductible for determining maintenance to wife

Repayments of loans taken for asset generation can’t be deducted  to arrive at earning capacity for determining maintenance to wife – Supreme Court

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that repayments of loans taken for asset generation can not be deducted to arrive at real earning capacity of the husband for the purpose of determining maintenance to wife.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5107 (2026) (04) abacus.in SC

Important Case Laws relied upon by Parties:
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan
Rajnesh v. Neha and Another

In the instant case the appellant wife had challenged the order of the Hon’ble High Court partly enhancing the maintenance awarded by the family court from ₹8,000/- per month to ₹15,000/- per month.

Within a year of their marriage, the appellant wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental residence. Since then, she had been residing separately and had no independent source of income for her sustenance.

The appellant instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking maintenance quantified at ₹50,000/- per month. Despite service of notice, the respondent husband did not enter appearance and the matter proceeded ex parte.

The Family Court, by judgment awarded maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month to the appellant. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment partly allowed the revision and enhanced the maintenance to ₹15,000/- per month.

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant submitted that the amount of ₹15,000/- per month was grossly inadequate and did not reflect the true earnings of the husband. It is urged that the respondent was in salaried employment and was earning a substantial monthly income, which had not been correctly appreciated by the courts below.

It was submitted that both the Family Court and the High Court had placed undue reliance on deductions reflected in the respondent’s salary, particularly those arising out of loan repayments and financial commitments. It was submitted that such deductions were largely voluntary in nature and related to acquisition of assets and, therefore, cannot be permitted to dilute the respondent’s primary obligation to maintain his wife.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it had held that the provision of maintenance is intended to prevent destitution and that a wife is not required to establish absolute inability to survive before claiming maintenance. The maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity. The maintenance must be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed 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.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that in the present case, it was not in dispute that the husband was in salaried employment and had a regular source of income. The Family Court, while determining maintenance, appeared to have accorded considerable weight to deductions reflected in the salary, and the High Court to an extent, corrected the inadequacy by enhancing the amount.

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that 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 a the liability of maintenance. The liability to maintain a spouse is primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that 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.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated 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.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced the amount of maintenance payable to the wife to ₹25,000/- per month.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Non issue of notice u/s 143(2) for even belated ITR filed u/s 148 makes assessment void ab initio
• Calculation of functional disability depends on victim’s earning capacity in open market – SC
• Appeal against ITAT shall lie only before High Court within whose jurisdiction AO is situated
• SC recommends action against Customs Officer who relied upon AI generated fake case laws
• Non- payment of cost imposed can’t trigger automatic confirmation of an invalid exparte assessment.