Loans, EMIs Can't Override Duty To Pay Maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently held that personal financial commitments cannot override the statutory obligation to maintain a wife and child.

A bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar was hearing an appeal filed by the husband challenging the order of the family court that had directed him to pay Rs 15,000 as maintenance to his wife and son.

The couple tied the knot on February 27, 2009. Out of the said wedlock, one son was born who is currently living with the mother. Later, the couple separated on March 16, 2020.

The husband had filed a divorce petition, and the wife accordingly sought Rs 30,000 monthly maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that the family court had ignored his financial liabilities, including housing loan EMIs and mediclaim premiums, which also covered his wife and son. He further contended that the wife was educated, and capable of earning and that his employment was contractual with limited income.

Rejecting the husband's argument that EMIs and loan liabilities reduced his take-home income, the court observed that despite the wife's education and earning potential, she is looking after the minor child and also suffers from a medical condition.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, wherein the court observed: “It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself... Maintenance is always dependent upon the factual situation.”

While assessing the husband’s income, which came to Rs 47,128, the court clarified that only statutory deductions like tax, provident fund, etc., are allowed; EMIs or personal loans cannot be deducted while calculating maintenance.

"In the present appeal, the husband failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, or procedural impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference by the Court. The findings of the family court were based on cogent material on record, including bank statements, tax returns, and income affidavits submitted by both parties and were in line with the binding guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903," the court held.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the family court's order granting Rs 15,000 per month as maintenance.

Case Title: X vs Y