The Supreme Court has clarified that a husband’s obligation to maintain his wife under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be diminished by voluntary financial commitments such as loan repayments for asset acquisition. The judgment reinforces that maintenance must ensure the wife’s dignity and standard of living, not merely subsistence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant-wife, Deepa Joshi, and the respondent-husband, Gaurav Joshi, were married on 07.05.2023 in New Delhi under Hindu rites and customs. Shortly after the marriage, the appellant alleged sustained neglect, mental harassment, and physical abuse, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental residence. She has resided separately since then and has no independent source of income.
Key Facts
- The marriage took place on 07.05.2023
- The appellant left the matrimonial home within one year of marriage
- She filed a maintenance application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) on 18.09.2024
- The application was initially filed before the court at Tanakpur, Champawat, and later transferred to the newly constituted Family Court as Misc. Criminal Case No. 54 of 2024
- The respondent did not appear in proceedings, leading to an ex parte hearing
- The Family Court awarded ₹8,000 per month on 25.02.2025
- The High Court of Uttarakhand enhanced the amount to ₹15,000 per month on 26.06.2025, with effect from 18.09.2024
- The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that ₹15,000 was inadequate
Procedural History
- 07.05.2023: Marriage between the parties
- Within one year of marriage (circa May 2024): Appellant left matrimonial home
- 18.09.2024: Maintenance application filed under Section 144 BNSS
- 25.02.2025: Family Court awarded ₹8,000 per month
- 26.06.2025: High Court of Uttarakhand enhanced maintenance to ₹15,000 per month
- 16.04.2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment in Criminal Appeal No. of 2026
Relief Sought
The appellant sought enhancement of maintenance to ₹50,000 per month, arguing that the respondent’s actual income far exceeds the amounts considered by the lower courts. She also sought arrears from the date of application (18.09.2024) and a direction to include all income components in the calculation, excluding voluntary loan repayments.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether voluntary loan repayments for asset acquisition can be deducted from a husband’s gross income to reduce his maintenance liability under Section 144 of the BNSS, and whether the maintenance amount must reflect the wife’s right to live with dignity commensurate with the marital standard.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the respondent, employed as a Manager at Canara Bank, draws a gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670, as confirmed by his compliance affidavit dated 06.02.2026. The deductions claimed - primarily towards home and personal loans - are voluntary and result in capital asset creation, not essential living expenses. Relying on Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, and Rajnesh v. Neha, counsel contended that maintenance must be fair, reasonable, and sufficient to preserve the wife’s dignity. The courts below erred in treating asset-building liabilities as equivalent to necessary expenditure.
For the Respondent
Counsel submitted that the High Court had already enhanced the maintenance amount after a careful review of the respondent’s financial obligations. He argued that the respondent’s disposable income is genuinely reduced by legitimate financial commitments, including EMIs for housing and other loans. The ₹15,000 awarded, he claimed, was a balanced figure considering his liabilities and the wife’s needs.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the foundational principles governing maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS, reaffirming that the purpose is not to provide mere subsistence but to ensure the wife lives with dignity, consistent with the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. The Court cited Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, and Rajnesh v. Neha to underscore that maintenance must be neither illusory nor disproportionate.
"The liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements."
The Court rejected the notion that loan repayments for asset acquisition - such as home loans or vehicle loans - should be equated with essential living expenses like food, shelter, or medical care. Such repayments, the Court held, are voluntary investments that enhance the husband’s long-term wealth and cannot be used to diminish his immediate statutory duty.
The Court noted that the respondent’s gross income of ₹1,15,670 per month was undisputed. Even after accounting for statutory deductions (taxes, provident fund), the disposable income remained substantial. The High Court’s enhancement to ₹15,000 was deemed insufficient, as it still represented less than 13% of gross income, while the wife had no income and no means of self-sufficiency.
The Court emphasized that the exercise of determining maintenance is not arithmetic but equitable, requiring a balance between the husband’s capacity and the wife’s reasonable needs. The Court concluded that ₹25,000 per month would be just, fair, and reasonable under the circumstances.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the High Court’s order. The maintenance payable to the appellant-wife shall be enhanced to ₹25,000 per month, effective from 18.09.2024. Arrears shall be cleared within three months from the date of this judgment. The maintenance amount shall be paid on or before the 7th day of each calendar month. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Asset-Generating Loans Cannot Reduce Maintenance Liability
- Practitioners must now argue that EMIs for housing, vehicles, or investments are capital expenditures, not essential living costs
- Courts must exclude such deductions when calculating disposable income for maintenance purposes
- The burden shifts to the husband to prove that a deduction is truly unavoidable (e.g., medical debt, statutory taxes)
Dignity, Not Just Survival, Is the Standard
- Maintenance must reflect the marital standard of living, not merely the wife’s bare survival
- Courts must consider lifestyle, education, healthcare, and social norms during the marriage
- A wife’s lack of independent income does not justify minimal awards; the husband’s earning capacity is the primary benchmark
Procedural Compliance Is Critical
- Compliance affidavits disclosing gross income are now indispensable in maintenance proceedings
- Ex parte proceedings do not absolve the court of the duty to verify income claims
- Failure to disclose income or misrepresenting liabilities may lead to adverse inference
