Topic
The Supreme Court ruled that Provident Fund and ESPP contributions cannot be treated as compulsory deductions when determining net income for maintenance under HMA Sections 24 and 26. The Court enhanced monthly child maintenance to Rs.1.25 lakh and granted the wife Rs.30,000 for cancer treatment, ordering compliance within three months.
Bombay High Court rules that additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC must include comprehensive financial documents-IT returns, bank statements, GST filings, and asset ownership-to ensure a just maintenance order. The ruling underscores that partial disclosure defeats the purpose of fair adjudication in matrimonial disputes.
The Supreme Court ruled that a husband’s voluntary repayment of loans used to acquire assets cannot be counted as a reduction in his disposable income when calculating spousal maintenance under BNSS Section 144. This reinforces that maintenance must reflect true earning capacity and uphold the wife’s dignity, not shield assets through financial engineering.
Tripura High Court sets Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 5,000 as fixed monthly maintenance for wife and minor daughter, respectively, rejecting the trial court's 50% salary deduction as disproportionate. The ruling reinforces the Rajnesh v. Neha principle that maintenance must align with the husband's actual financial capacity, not arbitrary salary deductions.
Rajasthan High Court rules that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act must reflect the husband's stable government income and the wife's lack of residential security. The Court enhanced the alimony from ₹25 lakhs to ₹40 lakhs, setting a precedent for equitable spousal maintenance calculations in similar cases.