Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi 2026 INSC 370 - Maintenance - Deductions On Financial Commitments
Voluntary financial commitments cannot be accorded precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance.
Maintenance -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 -Repayments of loans, particularly where such repayments result in creation or acquisition of assets, partake the 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. (Para 13-16)
Case Info
Key Case Information
Case name: Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 370
Coram:Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Judgment date: 16 April 2026 (New Delhi)
Case laws and citations referred
The judgment refers to and relies on three Supreme Court precedents:
- Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 – on the object of maintenance and that a wife need not prove absolute inability to survive to claim maintenance.
- Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 – emphasizing that maintenance cannot be illusory and must allow the wife to live with dignity.
- Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 – reiterating that maintenance must be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties and financial capacity of the husband.
Statutes / laws referred
The Court proceeds under:
- Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – maintenance proceedings (successor framework to Section 125 CrPC).
- Incidental reference to the Family Courts jurisdiction (no specific section cited, but Family Court at Champawat dealt with the matter as a transferred BNSS proceeding).
Three-sentence brief summary
The appellant-wife, having been forced to leave the matrimonial home and without any independent income, sought maintenance of ₹50,000 per month under Section 144 BNSS; the Family Court granted ₹8,000 and the High Court enhanced it to ₹15,000. The Supreme Court held that loan and asset-creating deductions from the husband’s salary cannot substantially reduce his maintenance liability, noting his gross income of ₹1,15,670 per month as a Manager in Canara Bank. Applying settled principles from Chaturbhuj, Shamima Farooqui and Rajnesh, the Court enhanced the maintenance to ₹25,000 per month from the original date, directing clearance of arrears within three months and payment by the 7th of each month.
