Personal Loans or Emis Are Voluntary Financial Obligations and Cannot Override Husband’s Duty of Maintenance to Wife Under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act
- INTRODUCTION
In a significant decision dated 26 May 2025, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that voluntary financial obligations, including personal loans, EMIs, house rent, life insurance premiums, or Mediclaim premiums, cannot reduce or override the statutory duty of an earning spouse to maintain a dependent spouse or child under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case, sub judice, involved an appeal against a family court order awarding interim maintenance of ₹ 15,000 (₹ 8,000 for the wife and ₹ 7,000 for the minor son). - FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\
The parties were married in February 2009 and separated in March 2020; they have a minor son born in 2015. The wife petitioned under S. 24 HMA, initially seeking ₹ 30,000 per month maintenance. The Family Court assessed the husband’s income at ₹ 47,128 per month, based on salary and rental income, and granted ₹ 15,000 maintenance. The husband appealed, arguing that various personal financial commitments—including EMIs totalling approximately ₹ (15,092 + 4,108 + 7,407)—as well as Mediclaim premiums covering wife and child, reduced his actual disposable income. - LEGAL ISSUESi. Whether voluntary financial obligations should be permitted as deductions reducing disposable income for maintenance computation.
ii. Whether such obligations can allow the husband to evade his statutory duty to maintain his wife and minor child under S. 24 HMA.
- JUDICIAL ANALYSIS AND HOLDINGS
The DHC bench, presided over by Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar, relied on binding Supreme Court authority (such as Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, 1970) and the framework from Rajnesh v. Neha, 2021, to reaffirm that only statutory deductions—such as taxes or provident fund contributions—are allowable in maintenance calculations. - THE COURT HELD THAT:
i. EMIs, insurance premiums, personal loans, house rent, etc., are voluntary commitments, not legitimate statutory deductions.
ii. Maintenance must be assessed based on the paying spouse’s “free income”, representing true earning capacity and standard of living, not after self-incurred debts.
iii. Allowing deductions for voluntary borrowing would permit a party to artificially reduce their income to evade maintenance obligations.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Family Court’s maintenance award of ₹ 15,000 per month was upheld as lawful, reasonable, and compliant with statutory jurisprudence. - SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
i. REINFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE AS A STATUTORY DUTY
The ruling reiterates that maintenance under Section 24 is a legal obligation that is unaffected by personal financial planning of the paying spouse.ii. CLARIFYING THE SCOPE OF DEDUCTIBLE OBLIGATIONS
By distinguishing between statutory deductions and voluntary liabilities, the judgment limits the scope of deductions when computing maintenance, thereby ensuring that dependents are not unfairly deprived of support.iii. PREVENTING EVASION THROUGH BORROWING
The judgment cautions against strategic borrowing intended to reduce disposable income, making clear that such conduct cannot serve as a shield from maintenance liability. - COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
The Delhi High Court’s stance aligns with the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Smt. Monika v. Praveen (Sep. 9, 2024), where the MPHC reversed a husband’s plea to deduct loan EMIs from his income, emphasizing that voluntary repayments cannot dilute maintenance obligations. Together, these decisions signal a coherent judicial approach across jurisdictions favouring dependents’ rights. - CONCLUSION
THE DELHI HIGH COURT’S DECISION IN MAY 2025 UNDERSCORES A ROBUST LEGAL PRINCIPLE
Voluntary borrowings do not and cannot undermine statutory maintenance obligations. By mandating calculation based on free income, the court protects dependents from being penalized by the paying spouse’s unilateral financial decisions. This doctrine ensures that Section 24 remains an effective mechanism for safeguarding the welfare of spouses and children in separation or matrimonial litigation.This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer or advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.
Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.
