The Supreme Court has enhanced the maintenance payable to a wife from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per month, observing 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 the liability of maintenance. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.15662 of 2025 titled Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi. The Court emphasized that the obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing duty which must be discharged in a manner that enables the wife to live with dignity and in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.
The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married on 07.05.2023 at New Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Within a year of marriage, the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental residence. She has been residing separately since then and has no independent source of income. She instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on 18.09.2024 before the competent court at Tanakpur, District Champawat, seeking maintenance of ₹50,000 per month. The Family Court awarded ₹8,000 per month, which was enhanced by the High Court of Uttarakhand to ₹15,000 per month. Still dissatisfied with the quantum, the wife approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the maintenance awarded must enable the wife to sustain herself with a reasonable degree of dignity, consistent with the status of the parties. It noted that the husband is employed as a Manager with Canara Bank and draws a gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670. The Court held that deductions towards loan repayments, 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 Court clarified, “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 the liability of maintenance. The liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.” It further stated, “The obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing duty, which must be discharged in a manner that enables the wife to live with dignity and in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.”
The Supreme Court concluded that a sum of ₹25,000 per month would be just, fair and reasonable in the facts of the present case. It modified the impugned judgment of the High Court accordingly and directed that arrears, if any, shall be cleared within a period of three months. The maintenance amount shall be paid on or before the 7th day of each calendar month. The appeal was disposed of in the above terms.
Case Title: Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi
Citation: 2026 INSC 370
Date of Judgment: 16 April 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 