The Supreme Court has recalibrated maintenance awards in a matrimonial dispute, holding that provident fund and employee stock purchase plan contributions are not compulsory deductions but benefits accruing to the earning spouse, thereby increasing the disposable income available for maintenance. The Court enhanced child maintenance to Rs.1,50,000 per month (Rs.75,000 per child) effective 1 January 2025 and awarded the wife Rs.30,000 per month considering her aggressive breast cancer treatment expenses, directing compliance within three months.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The marriage between Harpreet Sawhney (Appellant-wife) and Puneet Sharma (Respondent-husband) was solemnised on 9 December 2004 in accordance with Sikh rites in New Delhi. Two sons were born of the wedlock: Master Aryan Puneet Sharma on 29 January 2011 and Master Aadi Sharma on 24 July 2014. The matrimonial relationship deteriorated and on 21 June 2018, the husband left the wife and their two children. The wife instituted a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as HMA No. 1931/2019 (earlier HMA No. 545/2019), before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Key Facts
- The wife filed an application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 17 September 2019 seeking interim maintenance pendente lite of Rs.2,00,000 per month for herself and the two minor children, alongside litigation costs.
- The wife's net monthly income was Rs.91,000 compared to the husband's net income of Rs.2,70,000 as found by the Family Court.
- The wife was paying EMIs of Rs.48,888 per month for a flat purchased jointly and availing residence in said flat.
- School fees were approximately Rs.23,000 per child per month, besides private tuition, sports and other extra-curricular activities.
- The husband's salary was stated to be close to Rs.4,00,000 per month with an average bonus of Rs.6,00,000 per annum, estimating monthly income at Rs.4,50,000 (approx.).
- Deductions of Rs.1,64,856 were claimed by the husband towards compulsory deductions including income tax, provident fund, professional tax, etc., leaving Rs.2,80,000 (approx.) monthly.
- The wife was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer on 16 August 2024.
- The wife submitted documented monthly child expenditures of Rs.1,66,847 per month and increased combined school fees of Rs.55,690 per month at Shiv Nadar School.
- The husband undertook to execute documents to transfer ownership of a Mahindra XUV500 (Reg. No. UP16BA2073) in favour of the wife, asserting she contributed Rs.10,65,000 out of the total cost of Rs.14,99,577.
Procedural History
- 08.01.2021: Family Court disposed of interim maintenance application, declining maintenance to wife but granting Rs.37,000 per child per month from 17.09.2019 to 31.12.2020, enhanced to Rs.40,000 per child per month from 01.01.2021.
- 23.03.2021: Delhi High Court dismissed husband's appeal (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 42/2021) and affirmed interim maintenance quantum.
- 06.05.2021: Husband filed application under Section 151 CPC read with Section 26 HMA seeking enhanced visitation, monitoring mechanism over maintenance funds, reduction of maintenance to Rs.20,000 per child per month, and return of personal documents.
- 06.10.2022: Wife filed application seeking enhancement of child maintenance from Rs.40,000 per child per month (total Rs.80,000) to Rs.85,000 per child per month (total Rs.1,70,000).
- 07.10.2023: Wife filed application seeking transfer of ownership of Mahindra XUV500.
- 12.07.2024: Family Court disposed of all three pending applications, enhancing maintenance to Rs.50,000 per month per child from April 2024 till disposal of divorce petition; declined to adjudicate car ownership dispute.
- 22.08.2024: Wife challenged Family Court order before Delhi High Court in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 299/2024.
- 09.09.2024: High Court issued notice, summoned trial court record, maintained interim payments as per 12.07.2024 order.
- 10.12.2024: High Court directed husband to pay Rs.20,000 per month towards wife with effect from 01.12.2024, noting wife's cancer diagnosis.
- 27.02.2025: High Court noted husband's admission of non-compliance, rejected defence about lack of medical verification, issued suo motu contempt notice against husband (CONT.CAS(C) 634/2025).
- 06.05.2025: Supreme Court dismissed husband's SLP (SLP(C) No. 8839/2025) challenging interim medical direction.
- 16.07.2025: High Court observed husband's conduct amounted to aggravated contempt, directed personal presence.
- 12.08.2025: High Court requested Director General and Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, to secure husband's physical presence on 14.08.2025 after three successive pass-overs.
- 14.08.2025: High Court disposed of MAT.APP.(F.C.) 299/2024 and CONT.CAS(C) 634/2025, enhancing maintenance to Rs.1,25,000 per month for both children from April 2024; husband undertook to transfer car ownership.
- 26.08.2025: Wife filed Clarification Application (CM Appl. 55169/2025) seeking three clarifications including arrears payment, income assessment reaffirmation, and contempt proceedings basis.
- 02.09.2025: High Court directed husband to pay all arrears within six months while continuing monthly payments of Rs.1,25,000 without break.
- 10.08.2026: Supreme Court pronounced judgment in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 31815-31816 of 2025.
Relief Sought
The Appellant-wife sought enhancement of child maintenance beyond Rs.1,25,000 per month, inclusion of maintenance for herself considering cancer treatment expenses, clarification that PF and ESPP deductions are voluntary and not compulsory, and time-bound clearance of arrears.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether provident fund and employee stock purchase plan contributions constitute compulsory deductions that reduce net disposable income for maintenance calculation under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; (2) Whether the maintenance quantum fixed by the High Court adequately accounted for the wife's medical expenses due to aggressive breast cancer and the documented child expenditures; (3) Whether the effective date of enhanced maintenance should be revised from April 2024 to a later date considering the husband's income assessment.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that undisputed evidence showed combined monthly expenses of the children alone amounted to Rs.1,66,847 per month apart from household obligations borne by the wife. It was argued that deductions shown by the husband included voluntary contributions such as ESPPs which cannot be treated as compulsory deductions to reduce monthly income for maintenance purposes. Further, it was submitted that the wife's deteriorating health due to aggressive breast cancer directly impacted her ability to cover the shortfall in the minor children's expenses. The Appellant relied on the principle that maintenance estimation involves reasonable approximation rather than mathematical exactitude, as observed by the High Court in its 23.03.2021 order.
For the Respondent
The Respondent-husband contended that his net disposable income after compulsory deductions was Rs.2,80,000 per month. He claimed the wife's claimed expenses were exorbitant, disputed the EMI calculation, alleged pandemic fee-waiver retention, and accused the wife of perjury. He further asserted registered ownership of the Mahindra XUV500 and cited a Delhi Transport Department circular dated 29.12.2021 capping diesel vehicle lifespan at 10 years in NCR to demand the vehicle's return. The husband challenged the interim medical maintenance direction before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 8839/2025, which was dismissed on 06.05.2025.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the income assessment made by the High Court in paragraph 4 of its final order dated 14.08.2025. The Court noted the husband's statement that his salary was close to Rs.4,00,000 per month with an average bonus of Rs.6,00,000 per annum, estimating monthly income at Rs.4,50,000 (approx.). Out of this, Rs.1,64,856 was claimed as compulsory deductions including income tax, provident fund, professional tax, etc., leaving Rs.2,80,000 (approx.) monthly.
The Court considered the Appellant's submissions that the deductions were voluntary in nature. It found that deductions of Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately benefits that would be passed on to the Respondent-husband. Unlike income tax payment or professional taxes which are mandatory taxes, PFs and ESPPs are not permanent charges but rather will accrue into the account of the Respondent-husband which can be withdrawn by the depositor or in the future. This distinction is critical: compulsory statutory deductions such as income tax and professional tax reduce disposable income, whereas retirement and savings contributions, though deducted at source, remain the employee's asset and cannot be treated as reducing maintenance capacity.
The Court was also mindful of the expenses for the cancer treatment of the Appellant-wife who is looking after both children who reside with her. Per interim order dated 10.12.2024, the Delhi High Court had already directed interim maintenance towards the Appellant for Rs.20,000 per month. The Court noted that this interim maintenance was not mentioned in the final order dated 14.08.2025. Considering the medical expenses, the Court found it fit to enhance the maintenance to Rs.30,000 per month for the wife.
"We find that deductions of Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately benefits that would be passed on to the Respondent-husband. Unlike Income Tax payment or professional taxes which are mandatory taxes, PFs and ESPPs are not permanent charges but rather will accrue into the account of the Respondent-husband which can be withdrawn by the deposit or in the future."
The Court accordingly enhanced monthly maintenance for both children to a total of Rs.1,50,000 (Rs.75,000 per child) with effect from 1st January 2025, observing that this will not preclude the Appellant from seeking enhancement as and when there are change in circumstances. The Court also noted the undertaking given by the Respondent-husband in paragraph 7 of the High Court order regarding transfer of car ownership and directed him to abide by it within three months.
The Verdict
The Appellant-wife succeeded in part. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's maintenance quantum and enhanced monthly maintenance for both children to a total of Rs.1,50,000 (Rs.75,000 per child) effective from 1 January 2025. The Court awarded the wife maintenance of Rs.30,000 per month considering her aggressive breast cancer treatment expenses. The Respondent-husband was directed to comply with the enhanced maintenance and the car transfer undertaking within three months from the date of the order (10 August 2026). The Court clarified that PF and ESPP contributions are not compulsory deductions for maintenance calculation as they accrue as benefits to the husband. All interim applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Retirement Contributions Do Not Reduce Maintenance Capacity
The judgment establishes a clear principle that provident fund and employee stock purchase plan contributions, though deducted at source from salary, are not "compulsory deductions" that reduce net disposable income for maintenance purposes under Sections 24 and 26 HMA. These are savings and retirement benefits that ultimately accrue to the earning spouse. Practitioners must now argue that only statutory mandatory deductions (income tax, professional tax) reduce maintenance capacity, while PF, ESPP, NPS, and similar contributions remain the employee's asset. This significantly increases the assessed disposable income in high-earning spouse cases.
Medical Expenses of Primary Caregiver Are Independent Ground For Spousal Maintenance
The Court's enhancement of wife's maintenance from Rs.20,000 (interim) to Rs.30,000 per month specifically on account of aggressive breast cancer treatment expenses, while she remains primary caregiver to two minor children, sets an important precedent. Where the custodial parent faces serious illness, the maintenance calculus must independently account for medical costs over and above child maintenance. This prevents the erosion of child maintenance funds for the caregiver's treatment.
Effective Date of Enhancement Can Be Prospective From New Year
The Court fixed the enhanced child maintenance from 1 January 2025 rather than April 2024 (as ordered by the High Court) or the date of judgment. This demonstrates judicial discretion to choose a practical effective date that balances arrears burden with the recipient's needs. Practitioners should argue for specific effective dates aligned with financial years or academic years where child expenses are documented, rather than accepting retrospective dates that may be unenforceable.
- Actionable takeaway: In maintenance applications, obtain detailed salary breakdowns separating statutory deductions (tax, professional tax) from voluntary savings (PF, ESPP, NPS, VPF) and argue only the former reduce disposable income.
- Actionable takeaway: Document medical expenses of the custodial parent separately with prognosis and treatment cost estimates to claim independent spousal maintenance over child maintenance.
- Actionable takeaway: Propose practical effective dates for enhanced maintenance (e.g., start of financial year, academic year) to improve enforceability and reduce arrears disputes.
