Loan Instalments, Insurance Premiums And Savings Cannot Be Deducted From Husband’s Income For Maintenance: Kerala High Court Dismisses Revision Challenge In Matrimonial Maintenance Dispute
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held that payments made by a husband toward loan instalments, insurance premiums, and other savings cannot be deducted when assessing his net income for determining maintenance payable to his wife or child. The Court considered a challenge to the Family Court’s direction requiring the husband to provide monthly maintenance to his spouse and minor child, who asserted lack of independent means. After examining the competing claims on income and expenses, the Court upheld the maintenance awarded and directed the husband to clear arrears within the prescribed period.
The wife and minor child filed a petition before the Family Court seeking monthly maintenance, asserting that they had no independent means and that the husband was employed as an Instructor at an engineering college earning around ₹50,000 per month. They sought maintenance to meet living and educational expenses. The husband, as respondent before the Family Court, contested the claim by stating that the wife had her own source of income. He further asserted that his monthly income was ₹19,574 in hand and that he required a portion for his own living expenses. He also stated that he was responsible for supporting his aged parents and had recurring liabilities including loan instalments and insurance premium payments.
During the joint trial of the maintenance case and a related original petition, the evidence included the salary certificate showing a gross salary of ₹21,554 and net salary of ₹19,574, receipts of insurance premium payments, a vehicle loan statement, an account statement, and an LIC policy certificate produced by the husband. The wife’s side produced documentary evidence marked as exhibits. The Family Court evaluated the evidence and the statutory framework under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the assessment of “sufficient means.”
The Court recorded that although the husband alleged that the wife had her own source of income, “neither the nature of such source nor the actual income was disclosed, and no evidence has been forthcoming in this regard.”
Regarding the husband’s contention that loan liabilities and other deductions should limit his ability to pay maintenance, the Court relied on Surendran K. v. Aswin K.S. and another [2015 (4) KLT 682] and reproduced the judicial stance that “the salaried employee cannot wriggle out of the statutory liability to pay maintenance allowance by way of availing a huge loan and fixing a substantial amount of his salary as monthly installments for repayment.”
The Court noted the quoted passage further stating that “it cannot be confined to or limited to net salary… all the above deductions are long term savings and he will get back the same with attractive interest at the end of his service.”
It recorded that “even if a considerable amount is being deducted… except income tax or profession tax, that amount cannot be excluded from reckoning sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance.”
The judgment also contained the observation that “many husbands who are in loggerheads with their wife and who are liable to pay maintenance… would avail loans, insurance policies and increase payment towards GPF and other modes of savings to reduce the take home salary with a view to reduce the quantum of maintenance amount.”
The Court stated that this “tactics is to be deprecated,” and therefore “showing some amounts as deductions from the salary under the above heads, by itself, would not absolve the liability of the husband to canvass reduction in the quantum of maintenance.”
The Court recorded that “the revision petitioner, being husband and father obliged to look after and maintain the wife and child… could not wriggle out either from payment of maintenance or from reducing the quantum mainly on the above grounds.”
It acknowledged that “the amount granted by the Family Court is only ₹6,000 and ₹3,500 per month, a very nominal rate.”
The Court recorded that “the order of the Family Court granting ₹6,000/- to the wife and ₹3,500/- to the minor daughter as monthly maintenance, is found to be very reasonable, and the challenge against the said finding is without merit and deserves dismissal. In the result, this R.P.(FC) is dismissed with a direction to the revision petitioner/husband to clear the arrears, within a period of thirty days. Failing which, the wife and child are at liberty to execute the order, forthwith.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Adv. Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath
For the Respondents: Advs. Sri. M.V. Amaresan and Sri. S.S. Aravind
Case Title: XXX vs YY & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:88103
Case Number: RPFC No. 321 of 2025
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
