Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 370
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.15662 OF 2025)
DEEPA JOSHI … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GAURAV JOSHI …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present Criminal Appeal arises out of
the judgment and order dated 26.06.2025
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2025,
whereby the High Court partly allowed the
revision preferred by the appellant-wife and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2026.04.16
17:58:53 IST
Reason:
enhanced the maintenance awarded by the
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 1 of 10
Family Court from ₹ 8,000/- per month to
₹ 15,000/- per month, payable from the date of
the application i.e. 18.09.2024.
3. The appellant-wife and the respondent-
husband were married on 07.05.2023 at New
Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites and
customs. Following the marriage, the appellant
resided at the matrimonial home along with the
respondent and his family members. The record
indicates that the relationship between the
parties did not remain cordial and, according to
the appellant, she was subjected to neglect and
acts of physical as well as mental harassment
during her stay in the matrimonial home.
4. Within a year of their marriage, the appellant
was forced to leave the matrimonial home and
return to her parental residence. Since then,
she has been residing separately and is stated
to have no independent source of income for her
sustenance.
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 2 of 10
5. In these circumstances, the appellant instituted
proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
BNSS), on 18.09.2024 before the competent
court at Tanakpur, District Champawat,
seeking maintenance quantified at ₹ 50,000/-
per month. Upon establishment of the Family
Court at Champawat, the proceedings stood
transferred and were registered as Misc.
Criminal Case No. 54 of 2024. Despite service of
notice, the respondent did not enter appearance
and the matter proceeded ex parte.
6. The Family Court, by judgment dated
25.02.2025, awarded maintenance of ₹ 8,000/-
per month to the appellant, taking into account
the respondent’s salary structure and the
deductions reflected therein. Aggrieved by the
quantum so fixed, appellant preferred Criminal
Revision No. 201 of 2025 before the High Court
of Uttarakhand. The High Court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 26.06.2025, partly
allowed the revision and enhanced the
maintenance to ₹ 15,000/- per month,
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 3 of 10
maintaining the date of commencement as
18.09.2024. Still dissatisfied, the appellant has
approached this Court by way of the present
appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the amount of ₹ 15,000/- per month is grossly
inadequate and does not reflect the true
earnings of the respondent. It is urged that the
respondent is in salaried employment and is
earning a substantial monthly income, which
has not been correctly appreciated by the courts
below. It is further contended that the appellant
has no independent source of income and is
wholly dependent upon maintenance as
claimed.
8. It is submitted that both the Family Court and
the High Court have placed undue reliance on
deductions reflected in the respondent’s salary,
particularly those arising out of loan
repayments and financial commitments.
According to the appellant, such deductions are
largely voluntary in nature and relate to
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 4 of 10
acquisition of assets and, therefore, cannot be
permitted to dilute the respondent’s primary
obligation to maintain his wife. It is also
contended that the respondent possesses
sufficient means and that the maintenance
awarded constitutes only a small fraction of his
income, thereby rendering it wholly
disproportionate.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the High Court has already
enhanced the maintenance after due
consideration of the material on record and no
further interference for enhancement is
warranted. It is contended that the respondent’s
actual disposable income is reduced on account
of various financial liabilities and deductions,
which have been rightly taken into account. It
is further submitted that the respondent does
not have unlimited financial capacity and that
the amount awarded is reasonable in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 5 of 10
10. Having considered the submissions and the
material placed on record, we are of the view
that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the
High Court requires a limited reconsideration.
11. The object of maintenance proceedings is well
1
settled. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai , this Court
held that the provision is intended to prevent
destitution and that a wife is not required to
establish absolute inability to survive before
claiming maintenance. In Shamima Farooqui
2
v. Shahid Khan , it was emphasized that
maintenance must not be illusory and should
enable the wife to live with dignity. Further, in
3
Rajnesh v. Neha and Another , this Court
reiterated that maintenance must be fair,
reasonable and commensurate with the status
of the parties and the financial capacity of the
husband.
12. Tested on the aforesaid principles, it emerges
1
(2008) 2 SCC 316
2
(2015) 5 SCC 705
3
(2021) 2 SCC 324
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 6 of 10
that the determination of maintenance must be
guided by a balanced assessment of the earning
capacity of the husband and the reasonable
needs of the wife. In the present case, it is not
in dispute that the respondent is in salaried
employment and has a regular source of
income. The Family Court, while determining
maintenance, appears to have accorded
considerable weight to deductions reflected in
the salary, and the High Court has, to an extent,
corrected the inadequacy by enhancing the
amount.
13. However, deductions arising out of financial
commitments such as loan repayments,
particularly where they contribute towards
creation of assets, cannot be placed on the same
footing as necessary expenditure so as to
substantially reduce the liability of
maintenance. The liability to maintain a spouse
is a primary obligation and cannot be
subordinated to such financial arrangements.
14. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 7 of 10
no independent source of income and has been
residing separately shortly after the marriage.
The maintenance awarded must therefore
enable her to sustain herself with a reasonable
degree of dignity, consistent with the status of
the parties. At the same time, it is necessary to
ensure that the determination remains fair and
reasonable and does not impose an excessive
burden upon the respondent. The exercise is
one of achieving a just balance between
competing considerations.
15. Insofar as the financial capacity of the
respondent is concerned, it is borne out from
the compliance affidavit filed pursuant to the
order dated 06.02.2026 that the respondent is
employed as a Manager with Canara Bank and
is drawing a gross monthly income of
₹ 1,15,670/-. The Courts below have taken note
of certain deductions from the said income,
including repayments towards loans. However,
it is well settled that repayments of loans,
particularly where such repayments result in
creation or acquisition of assets, partake the
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 8 of 10
character of capital investment and cannot be
equated with essential or unavoidable
expenditure. Such financial commitments,
being voluntary in nature, cannot be accorded
precedence over the statutory and legally
enforceable obligation of maintenance.
16. The obligation of the husband to maintain his
spouse is a primary and continuing duty, which
must be discharged in a manner that enables
the wife to live with dignity and in a standard
commensurate with that enjoyed during the
subsistence of the marriage. Viewed thus,
deductions on account of asset-generating
repayments cannot be permitted to
substantially dilute the respondent’s real
earning capacity for the purpose of determining
maintenance. We are of the opinion that a sum
of ₹ 25,000/- per month would be just, fair and
reasonable in the facts of the present case.
17. The impugned judgment dated 26.06.2025,
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, is
modified to the extent that the maintenance
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 9 of 10
payable to the appellant-wife shall be enhanced
to ₹ 25,000/- per month.
18. Arrears, if any, shall be cleared within a period
of three months. The maintenance amount shall
th
be paid on or before the 7 day of each calendar
month.
19. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2026.
CRL. APPEAL. @ SLP (CRL.) No.15662/2025 Page 10 of 10