The Uttarakhand High Court enhanced the maintenance awarded to a woman and her three-year-old child from Rs 12,000 to Rs 25,000 per month, noting that her husband, an Army sepoy, had substantial earning capacity, while she had no independent income. It added that voluntary post-retirement deductions could not defeat their maintenance claim.
Justice Alok Mahra was dealing with a plea by a wife challenging the family court order, which directed the husband, who has a gross salary of Rs 88,588, to pay Rs 12,000 per month as maintenance to the woman and his child.
“In the present case, the material placed on record indicates that the revisionist (wife) has no independent source of income and is maintaining herself as well as the minor child. The respondent is admittedly serving in the Indian Army,” the court said on August 17.
“The mere fact that certain deductions are being made from the salary of the respondent towards post-retiral schemes cannot, by itself, be treated as a ground to determine maintenance solely on the basis of the amount remaining after such voluntary deductions,” the order underlined.
Such deductions, particularly those made towards savings or post-retiral benefits, “cannot have the effect of defeating or substantially reducing the legitimate claim” of the wife and minor child for maintenance, the ruling said.
The wife challenged the April 18 maintenance order by the family court which had ordered the husband to pay Rs 12,000 per month to the woman and his son.
Appearing for the wife, advocate Gaurav Kandpal submitted that the amount awarded was wholly inadequate and was fixed without properly appreciating the husband’s income and financial capacity.
It was submitted that the husband is serving as a sepoy in the Indian Army and is drawing a salary in the band pay of Rs 31,400, with his total gross monthly salary being approximately Rs 88,588. He further submitted that the wife has specifically stated on affidavit that she is not gainfully employed and has no independent source of income.
Appearing for the husband, advocate Nitin Kamal argued that the man’s actual monthly salary is around Rs 50,000. It was, however, submitted that even if the gross salary of Rs 88,588 per month, as claimed by the wife, is taken into consideration, the respondent has opted for various post-retiral schemes and substantial deductions, nearly to the extent of 40 per cent of his salary, are being made towards such schemes.
It was, hence, submitted that the respondent does not have the financial capacity to pay the enhanced amount.
The court held that the object of a maintenance order is not merely to ensure the bare survival of the wife and the minor child, but to enable them to live with reasonable dignity and in a manner in line with the husband’s status and standard of living, subject, of course, to his actual financial capacity.
“While determining the quantum of maintenance, the court is required to take into consideration the income and earning capacity of the husband, the reasonable needs of the wife and minor child, their respective standard of living, the expenses necessarily required to be incurred, and the other liabilities, if any, of the husband,” it added.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the high court observed that “voluntary deductions”, such as post-retiral schemes or savings that create/enhance assets, cannot take precedence over the legal obligation to maintain a spouse. A husband’s maintenance capability cannot be reduced or determined solely based on his net salary after such voluntary deductions.
The court noted that the wife has no independent source of income and is the sole custodian of the child aged about three years. It found the family court’s award of consolidated maintenance of Rs 12,000 per month to be on the lower side relative to the respondent’s salary as an Army sepoy, where his gross salary is Rs 88,588 per month. The court thus enhanced the consolidated maintenance for the wife and minor child from Rs 12,000 per month to Rs 25,000, payable on or before the 10th of every month.
Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More
