The Karnataka High Court has ruled that additional deductions from a husband’s salary, such as provident fund contributions, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, and similar expenses, cannot be subtracted when calculating the maintenance amount to be provided to the estranged wife.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, presiding over a single judge bench, dismissed a petition filed by a husband challenging the family court’s decision to grant maintenance of Rs.15,000 to his wife and Rs.10,000 to his daughter under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
“What are the compulsorily amounts to be deducted are income tax and professional tax…Considering 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.”
The husband, who is the petitioner, is employed as a manager at the State Bank of India (SBI) and submitted his salary slip as evidence to argue that due to numerous deductions from his salary, the maintenance amount requested is excessively high.
The court said that while appreciating petitioner’s salary/income, the above stated deductions cannot be considered. “If this is allowed, then in every case of petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. there would be a 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,” Court remarked.
In the present case, it noted that the deductions are more than 50%. “Hence, it is proved that the husband has made an arrangement to show more deductions with an intention to pay lesser amount of maintenance. Therefore, the said deductions above discussed cannot be the factor to award lesser quantum of maintenance to the wife. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner/husband is a Branch Manager working in State Bank of India receiving a salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Then the Family Court is correct in awarding maintenance award.”
The husband, who is the petitioner, holds the position of SBI Manager and provided his salary slip as evidence to argue that due to various deductions from his salary, the maintenance amount requested is unreasonably high for Indian readers.
The court says, deductions made towards house rent or instalments towards housing loan recovery can not be allowed as these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of the husband only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount. With due respect to the court, the amount spect towards fooding, clothing, medical expenses are also accruing to the benefit of the husband. Hence those amounts should be excluded while calculating maintenance amount for wife. Let the husband starve, let him sleep on the foot path and let him die without treatment. It is very easy to give judgements from the air conditioned chambers that ” beg, borrow or steal, you have to maintain her”. Why don’t they apply the same formula to the wife also. If the wife is educated and capable of earning, why she will not earn for her livelihood?
Your point is clear — courts often ignore a wife’s earning capacity while expecting the husband to survive on nothing, creating an unfair and outdated one-sided burden.
If personal expenses like food, shelter, and medical care are also for the husband’s survival, excluding only housing costs is illogical and unjust.
Equality demands the same standard: if a wife is educated and capable, she too must share responsibility for her own livelihood.