Gujarat HC Sends Wife’s ₹12,500 Maintenance Challenge Back for Fresh Review of Voluntary Salary Savings Versus Mandatory Taxes

The petitioner challenged the Sessions Court’s order confirming maintenance of ₹12,500 per month, with costs of ₹2,500, awarded under Section 125 CrPC from the date of the application.

She contended that her husband’s August 2022 salary was ₹77,414 and that the courts below had calculated maintenance using the net amount after deductions, without distinguishing voluntary savings from mandatory deductions.

The husband relied on a Gujarat High Court decision concerning deductions from salary and opposed the petition; he also submitted that he had retired and was receiving a pension.

The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging orders concerning maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Relying on Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma, 2026 INSC 822, the Court noted that mandatory deductions such as income tax and professional tax differ from deductions for provident fund or employee stock purchase plans: the latter may accrue to the employee as future benefits and are not necessarily permanent charges against income.

The respondent cited Pratibha Dinesh Kumar Vania v. State of Gujarat, 2008 1 GCD 727, in support of deducting professional and income taxes before assessing salary.

The Court considered that the revisional court had confirmed the maintenance order without adequately distinguishing mandatory statutory deductions from voluntary financial savings that remain assets of the husband.

It therefore found the confirmation to suffer from palpable illegality. In light of the competing submissions about the husband’s salary and subsequent retirement and pension, the Court directed fresh consideration, with both parties permitted to produce necessary admissible evidence and to be heard.

The parties were directed to appear on 1 December 2026; all contentions were left open.