Husband Can't Make Voluntary Deductions Like EMI From His Income To Grant Less Maintenance To Wife: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while deciding the quantum of maintenance to be granted to a wife, said that the husband cannot be permitted to make voluntary deductions from his gross income which are not legally compulsory.

The Court enhanced the maintenance amount by modifying the family court's decision wherein it had allowed the husband to deduct an amount of Rs.10,000, which he was allegedly paying for EMI.

Justice Sumeet Goel said,

"The statutory deductions, which are mandated by law and beyond the control of the husband, can be taken into account. The respondent-husband cannot be allowed to reduce his financial liability towards the maintenance of his spouse or children by resorting to voluntary deductions or expenses that do not have legal compulsion. The primary obligation to maintain the dependents is not diluted through artificial reduction of income."

The Court was hearing a revision plea against the order passed by the Family Court filed by the wife, praying for modification of the said order and for enhancing the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the said order.

The wife was awarded interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC at the rate of Rs.8,000 per month (i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month to wife and Rs.2500 per month each to two minor daughters).

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Family Court ought to have considered the disparity between the actual income of the respondent and the paltry sum awarded, which is grossly inadequate to meet even the basic necessities of life.

Opposing the plea, the husband argued that he had to look after his ailing mother and there are other obligations as well. He also submitted that the wife has done Masters in History and is earning Rs.20,000 per month.

After examining the submissions, the Court said that, "it goes without saying that a decision upon the aspect (especially quantum) of interim maintenance, being result of some element of estimation, has to be construed accordingly as the entitlement of the applicant (making a plea for grant of interim maintenance) cannot be based upon exact arithmetical calculations at such stage."

The judge noted that the Family Court found the gross monthly income of the husband as Rs. 39,051 and his net income has been found to be Rs.34,976 per month.

However, the Family Court granted deduction of Rs.10,872 towards EMI being paid by the husband and has accordingly assessed the net income received in hand as Rs.24,104 per month.

The Court referred to Apex Court's decision in Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar vs. Raj Kumari (1971) wherein it held that, "No deduction is permissible for payment of house rent or electricity charges. The expenses for maintaining the car for the purpose of appellant's practice as a physician would be deductible only so far as allowed by the income-tax authorities..."

Considering the principles governing the assessment of quantum of maintenance (whether interim or final) under Section 125 of CrPC, the Court said, "it is indubitable that the deduction made from the gross income of the husband, which are on account of own volition of the husband, cannot be permitted."

Justice Goel highlighted that it is only the statutory deductions, which are beyond the control of the husband, which can be taken into account.

Consequently, the Court allowed the plea and modified the Family Court's order to the extent that the husband shall pay to wife a sum of Rs.4000 per month and Rs.3500 per month each to minor daughter.

Mr. Sumeet S. Brar, Advocate for Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

 XXXX v. XXXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 273