CASE NAME: Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15662 of 2025 / 2026 INSC 370
COURT: Supreme Court of India — Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
DATE: 20 April, 2026
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL & HON’BLE JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
FACTS
Deepa Joshi and Gaurav Joshi got married under the Hindu system and customs on 07․05․2023 at New Delhi‚ India․ After the marriage‚ the husband‚ the appellant‚ stayed at the matrimonial home with the respondent and his family․ However‚ the relationship between the parties was not to remain so and the appellant alleged that she was neglected and subjected to physical and mental harassment in the matrimonial home․
The appellant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home within the year‚ and to go back to her parents’ house․ Since then she has been living apart from the husband‚ and has no independent means of her own․
The present case is based on the petition dated 18․09․2024 under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita‚ 2023 (BNSS)‚ filed before the court of Sub Divisional Officer‚ Tanakpur District Champawat‚ claiming maintenance of ₹50‚000/-․ The same was registered as Misc․ Criminal Case No․ 54 of 2024 before the Family Court‚ Champawat․ Despite notice‚ the respondent did not appear before the Court․ Hence‚ the matter was decided ex parte․
The Family Court awarded her a maintenance of ₹8‚000/- per month‚ which was improved to ₹15‚000/- per month by the High Court of Uttarakhand․ Not satisfied‚ the appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court․
ISSUES
- Whether the quantum of maintenance of ₹ 15‚000/- per month awarded by the High Court is adequate and proportionate?
- Whether the making of loan repayments and other deductions from the respondent’s salary could constitute ground for reducing his liability to pay maintenance to the appellant-wife?
- Whether the primary obligation of a husband to maintain his wife can be subordinated to his voluntary financial commitments such as loan repayments that result in creation or acquisition of assets?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
| Section 144, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) |
|
Provides for maintenance to wife, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. The appellant filed her claim under this provision. It is the equivalent of Section 125 CrPC under the new criminal procedure law.
ARGUMENTS
Appellant (Deepa Joshi): The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount of ₹15‚000/- per month awarded by the High Court was grossly inadequate and not commensurate with the income of the respondent‚ who was in salaried employment and earned a substantial salary‚ which had not been appreciated by the courts below․ It was also submitted that the Family Court and the High Court had erred in relying upon the salary deductions from loan repayments‚ which the respondent had voluntarily undertaken for the purpose of acquiring the house‚ to reduce the respondent’s primary liability to maintain his wife․ The appellant has no independent means of income and is entirely dependent on the maintenance she receives on that count․
Respondent (Gaurav Joshi): The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the High Court has already increased the maintenance by considering the material on record and there is no reason for interference․ The disposable income of the respondent is reduced on account of several liabilities and deductions and the same was rightly taken into consideration by the courts below․ It was also argued that‚ not having unlimited financial resources‚ the amount already awarded is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case․
ANALYSIS
- Object and Purpose of Maintenance Proceedings
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the purpose of maintenance was to prevent a wife from falling into extreme poverty and to enable her to live with dignity and that the burden was not on the wife to prove that she would become destitute․ However‚ maintenance should not be illusory but must be fair‚ reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband․ Thus the quantum awarded by both the courts below needed to be reviewed․
- Treatment of Loan Repayments and Salary Deductions
Another issue was whether loan repayments reflected in the respondent’s salary slip could be deducted in calculating his ability to pay the maintenance․ The Court held that loan repayments were‚ in effect‚ a capital investment‚ representing a creation or acquisition of an asset‚ and could not be equated with expenditure that was essential or unavoidable․ These were just voluntary payments which could not take precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of the maintenance․ The Family Court and High Court had placed too much weight on these deductions․
- Assessment of the Respondent’s Financial Capacity
The Court took note of the compliance affidavit filed in purported compliance to the order dated 06․02․2026 and noted that the respondent is a Manager with the Canara Bank and he receives a gross salary of ₹1‚15‚670/- per month․ The Court applied its mind to the said amount and excluding the disproportionate deductions‚ held that the respondent could afford to pay a higher and more reasonable amount of maintenance․ He had earlier received awards of ₹8‚000/- and ₹15‚000/- for the first two the courts below‚ which were inadequate․
- Balancing the Rights of Both Parties
The Court‚ however‚ proceeded to note that the wife’s right to maintenance and dignified living must be respected‚ but that the exercise must be fair and not unduly onerous on the husband․ It described this balancing act between the rights of the parties as the exercise of coming to a just balance between disparate interests․ In view of the fact that the appellant has no income of her own‚ she was required to leave the matrimonial home within one year of marriage and she is legally entitled to an equivalent standard of living as enjoyed by her husband‚ the Court increased the maintenance to ₹25‚000/- per month․
- Precedents
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai — (2008) 2 SCC 316 – Constitutional Bench laid down the principles․
Provision of maintenance is only to prevent destitution; wife’s inability to live separately need not be proved.
Shamima Farooqui v․ Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 – Maintenance should not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity․
Rajnesh v․ Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324 – The maintenance should be fair‚ reasonable‚ and commensurate with the status of the parties and the ability of the husband to pay․
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court partly modified the impugned order dated 26․06․2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand․ The High Court had improved the maintenance amount from ₹8‚000/- to ₹15‚000/-․ The Supreme Court felt that the amount of ₹15‚000/- was extremely low as the respondent had gross monthly salary of ₹1‚15‚670/-․ Loan repayment regarding house construction cannot be treated as an offset against the husband’s liability to pay maintenance․ Hence the husband was directed to pay the wife improved maintenance of ₹25‚000/- per month‚ effective 18․09․2024 (date of filing of the petition)․ Any arrears would be payable within three months‚ and the future payments would be made on or before the 7th day of each calendar month․
CONCLUSION
This judgement underlines the long settled position that the husband’s obligation to maintain the wife is paramount and continual in nature‚ and cannot be diluted by the husband’s voluntarily incurring liabilities‚ such as repayment of loans‚ which has resulted in acquisition of personal property․ The Supreme Court’s enhancement of maintenance to ₹25‚000/- per month sends a clear message that the husband’s gross earning capacity‚ and not his post deduction take home salary‚ should be used to determine the maintenance․ Thus‚ it strikes a balance where the wife may be able to live with dignity and the obligation of the husband is not too onerous․ In this regard‚ the object of the maintenance regime‚ whether under the old CrPC or under the new BNSS regime‚ is to avoid destitution and preserve the dignity of the dependent spouse․
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: PRANAVI KOLLU
Read the judgement copy here:
Deepa Joshi v Gaurav Joshi
