The Delhi High Court has clearly ruled that personal loans or EMIs taken voluntarily by an earning spouse cannot be used as an excuse to avoid paying maintenance to the dependent spouse or child.
A division bench consisting of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar emphasized that deductions like house rent, electricity bills, life insurance premiums, or personal loans are voluntary financial commitments. These do not qualify as valid deductions when calculating the amount payable as maintenance.
“These are considered to be voluntary financial obligations undertaken by the earning spouse, which cannot override the primary obligation to maintain a dependent spouse or child,” the Court stated.
The Court firmly held that an individual cannot escape their statutory responsibility to support their spouse or dependents by intentionally reducing their disposable income through loans or financial arrangements that are not legally required.
“A person cannot wriggle out of his/her statutory liability to maintain his/her spouse and dependents by artificially reducing his/her disposable income through personal borrowings or long-term financial commitments undertaken unilaterally,” the Court added.
The bench clarified that maintenance should not be determined based on net income after deducting EMIs or other voluntary expenses. Instead, it should reflect the "free income"—the actual income available that matches the standard of living and earning capacity of the person.
This observation came while the Court dismissed an appeal filed by a husband against a family court order. The family court had ordered him to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance for his wife and child under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The husband argued that the family court ignored his regular EMI payments for a property loan and the Mediclaim policy covering his wife and child. However, the High Court was not convinced. It pointed out that the wife was suffering from a medical condition and had to care for their minor child, making it difficult for her to take up full-time employment.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court: Pending Litigation No Excuse to Avoid Property Tax Without Formal Demand Notice
“In such circumstances, the inability to engage in full-time or gainful employment cannot be viewed as a voluntary choice, but must be seen in light of the practical limitations imposed by her dual responsibilities,” the Court noted.
“The requirement of maintenance, therefore, stands not only in the absence of income but also on the inability to earn, due to genuine and compelling circumstances.”
The Court also rejected the husband’s claim that being a contractual employee relieved him from statutory maintenance duties. It agreed with the Family Court’s decision that such duties are rooted in law and cannot be bypassed through voluntary financial burdens.
“The findings of the learned Family Court are based on cogent material on record, including bank statements, tax returns and income affidavits submitted by both parties…,” the bench concluded.
Title: X v. Y
