In Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, the Supreme Court enhanced maintenance to ₹25,000, holding that loan EMIs for asset creation cannot dilute a husband’s primary legal duty to maintain his spouse.
The Supreme Court held that a husband cannot reduce maintenance by citing loan repayments. It clarified that financial commitments for asset creation do not override the legal duty to maintain a spouse.
The case is Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment on April 16, 2026.
The Court increased the wife’s maintenance to ₹25,000 per month. It modified the Uttarakhand High Court’s order.
The parties married on May 7, 2023.
Within a year, disputes arose. The wife left the matrimonial home and began living with her parents. She alleged neglect and harassment. She had no independent income.
On September 18, 2024, she filed a petition under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. She sought ₹50,000 per month as maintenance.
The Family Court, Champawat awarded ₹8,000 per month on February 25, 2025.
The Uttarakhand High Court increased it to ₹15,000 per month.
The wife challenged this amount before the Supreme Court.
The wife argued that the High Court relied too much on salary deductions. These included loan repayments and other financial commitments. She said these were voluntary expenses linked to asset creation. Hence, they should not reduce maintenance.
The husband argued that his liabilities reduced his disposable income. He claimed the High Court’s order was reasonable.
The Court stressed the purpose of maintenance. It aims to prevent destitution and ensure a dignified life.
The Court said judges must balance two factors:
- the husband’s financial capacity
- the wife’s needs
However, voluntary expenses cannot take priority over legal obligations.
The Court clearly stated:
“Loan repayments and similar financial commitments cannot be treated as necessary expenses to reduce maintenance liability.”
It added that such payments are capital investments. They do not reflect essential spending. Therefore, they cannot reduce actual earning capacity.
The Court relied on established rulings, including:
- Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008)
- Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015)
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021)
These cases confirm that maintenance must be fair, reasonable, and sufficient.
The Court noted that:
- the husband is a bank manager
- his gross monthly income is ₹1,15,670
- the wife has no income
Based on these facts, the Court fixed ₹25,000 per month as fair maintenance.
