The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the commonly cited 1/4th rule for maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is not a rigid ceiling when the spouse has significant financial liabilities. The judgment emphasizes that disposable income, not gross salary, must form the basis of maintenance calculations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 144 BNSS for maintenance against her husband, Nitin Kumar Shrivastava, a Junior Engineer with Power Grid Corporation of India. The Family Court, Tikamgarh, passed an order on 09.09.2025 awarding the wife Rs. 20,000 per month as maintenance. Both parties challenged this order through cross-revisions before the High Court.
Key Facts
- The husband’s gross monthly salary is Rs. 86,000
- After statutory and other deductions, his net take-home salary is Rs. 47,000
- The husband has an outstanding personal loan of Rs. 20,000 per month, which the Family Court did not deduct from income
- The husband has been employed with Power Grid Corporation since 2018
- The wife has no independent source of income
- The husband owns immovable property, but no evidence of rental income or other assets was presented
- The Family Court awarded Rs. 20,000/month, which both parties deemed inadequate or excessive
Procedural History
- 2024: Wife filed MJCR No. 337/2024 before the Family Court, Tikamgarh, seeking maintenance
- 09.09.2025: Family Court awarded Rs. 20,000 per month as maintenance
- 10.09.2025: Husband filed Criminal Revision No. 4957/2025 challenging the award as excessive
- 15.09.2025: Wife filed Criminal Revision No. 5908/2025 challenging the award as inadequate
- 01.04.2026: Both revisions heard together by the High Court at Jabalpur
Relief Sought
- Husband sought reduction of maintenance to Rs. 16,000/month (1/4th of Rs. 67,000 net income)
- Wife sought enhancement to Rs. 40,000/month, citing husband’s income and property
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the 1/4th of gross salary guideline from Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury is an inflexible cap under Section 144 BNSS, or whether courts must consider actual disposable income and legitimate financial liabilities of the paying spouse.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant (Husband)
Counsel relied on Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury to argue that maintenance should not exceed one-fourth of the husband’s net income after deductions. He contended that Rs. 20,000 exceeds 1/4th of his take-home pay of Rs. 67,000 (which is Rs. 16,750), making the award illegal and unsustainable. He further argued that the Family Court failed to account for his personal loan obligation, which is a legitimate deduction.
For the Respondent (Wife)
Counsel argued that the husband’s gross salary of Rs. 86,000 and possession of immovable property indicate substantial financial capacity. She contended that Rs. 20,000 is inadequate for her maintenance, especially in the absence of any other income, and that the Family Court erred by not considering the husband’s overall economic status. She urged the Court to award at least Rs. 40,000/month.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the husband’s income structure. It noted that while the gross salary is Rs. 86,000, the actual take-home after deductions is Rs. 47,000. The Court further held that the personal loan repayment of Rs. 20,000 per month, though not a statutory deduction, constitutes a legitimate financial liability that must be considered in determining disposable income.
"The obligation to pay maintenance must be balanced against the payer’s ability to meet his own essential obligations. A mechanical application of the 1/4th rule without accounting for genuine liabilities defeats the purpose of equitable relief."
The Court distinguished Kalyan Dey Chowdhury by emphasizing that the Supreme Court had never laid down a rigid formula, but rather a guiding principle to be applied with judicial discretion. The Court held that the Family Court had correctly assessed the husband’s net disposable income as Rs. 67,000 (Rs. 47,000 + Rs. 20,000 loan repayment excluded from deductions) and awarded Rs. 20,000, which is approximately 30% of disposable income - well within the bounds of reasonableness.
The Court also noted the absence of any evidence of rental income or liquid assets from the immovable property, and therefore declined to treat property ownership as a proxy for income.
The Verdict
Both criminal revisions were dismissed. The Family Court’s order dated 09.09.2025 awarding Rs. 20,000 per month as maintenance stands confirmed. The husband shall pay maintenance monthly, commencing from the date of the Family Court order, with no arrears directed. All pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Disposable Income, Not Gross Salary, Is the Benchmark
- Practitioners must now calculate maintenance based on net take-home pay after statutory deductions
- Personal loans, EMIs, and documented financial obligations can be considered legitimate deductions
- Gross salary alone cannot be the sole basis for maintenance calculations
The 1/4th Rule Is a Guideline, Not a Ceiling
- Courts may award more than 1/4th of net income if justified by the wife’s needs and husband’s capacity
- Courts may award less than 1/4th if the husband has substantial liabilities
- The Kalyan Dey Chowdhury principle must be applied contextually, not mechanically
Property Ownership Alone Does Not Equate to Income
- Ownership of immovable property cannot be presumed to generate income unless rental evidence is produced
- Maintenance must be tied to actual, verifiable cash flow, not asset value
- Advocates must submit bank statements, loan documents, and salary slips to substantiate claims
