The Karnataka High Court stated that deductions such as PF contributions, house rent/furniture recovery, LIC premium, etc., from the salary should not be factored into assessing the maintenance amount under section 125 Cr.P.C.
The bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar observed, “…deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.”
In this instance, the Petitioner appealed to the High Court regarding the decision made by the Family Court, contending that the maintenance awarded to the wife and child is overly generous.
While the Petitioner acknowledges having a salary exceeding 1 lakh, according to Petitioner’s Counsel, Advocate Vishwanath Kanavi, the take-home salary amounts to approximately 77 thousand after necessary deductions. Consequently, the Petitioner claimed an inability to afford the maintenance amounts of ₹15,000 and ₹10,000 for the wife and child, respectively.
The High Court emphasized the importance of thoroughly reviewing all evidence on record and considering the likelihood of various scenarios when determining the appropriate maintenance amount, especially in cases involving artificial deductions.
The Court’s ruling highlighted that while certain deductions such as income tax and professional tax are mandatory, the Petitioner’s excessive deductions were deemed a deliberate attempt to avoid fulfilling their obligation to provide maintenance to the wife and child.
The Court while noting that deductions such as PF contribution, house rent recovery, etc. cannot be considered while calculating the salary observed, “If this is allowed, then in every case of petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. there would be tendency by the husband to create artificial deductions making an attempt to show lesser take home salary with an intention to mislead the Courts in order to negate to give maintenance or an attempt to award to make lesser amount of maintenance.”
According to the Court, the deductions mentioned above will ultimately benefit the husband alone. Therefore, this cannot justify reducing the maintenance amount.
As a result, the Court rejected/dismissed the petition.