Voluntary loan repayments for asset creation cannot reduce the primary legal obligation to maintain a spouse.

The Appellant (wife) and Respondent (husband) were married on 07.05.2023.

Within a year, the Appellant left the matrimonial home alleging physical and mental harassment, returning to her parental residence with no independent source of income

On 18.09.2024, she instituted maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

The Family Court, Champawat, awarded ₹8,000 per month on 25.02.2025, considering the respondent's salary and deductions

In a revision petition, the High Court of Uttarakhand enhanced the amount to ₹15,000 per month

The Appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement, noting the Respondent’s gross monthly income as a Manager at Canara Bank is ₹1,15,670

1. Whether voluntary salary deductions, such as loan repayments for asset creation, can be prioritized over the statutory obligation to provide maintenance to a spouse

2. Whether the maintenance quantum of ₹15,000 per month was fair and commensurate with the husband's earning capacity and the wife’s requirement to live with dignity

Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding maintenance

Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, which established that maintenance provisions are intended to prevent destitution

Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, emphasizing that maintenance must not be illusory and should enable a wife to live with dignity

Rajnesh v. Neha, reiterating that maintenance must be fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the status of the parties and the husband's financial capacity

The liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation that cannot be subordinated to voluntary financial commitments

The Court examined the Respondent's financial capacity, noting his gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670 as a Bank Manager

It observed that the lower courts erred by placing undue weight on salary deductions related to loan repayments

The Court reasoned that repayments toward loans that result in the "creation or acquisition of assets" are essentially "capital investments" and "voluntary in nature"

Such deductions cannot be equated with essential expenditure or used to reduce the husband's disposable income to the detriment of the wife's maintenance

The Court held that the husband's duty to maintain the wife at a standard commensurate with the matrimonial status is a "primary and continuing duty"

Consequently, the Court found the existing award of ₹15,000 insufficient to ensure the wife’s sustenance with dignity and balanced the husband's earning capacity against the wife's needs to determine a more equitable sum

The Court held that asset-generating loan repayments cannot permit a husband to dilute his real earning capacity for the purpose of maintenance

The Court ordered that this amount is payable from the date of the application (18.09.2024), with all arrears to be cleared within three months, and subsequent payments to be made by the 7th of every month