Voluntary financial commitments such as personal loans or EMIs cannot be used as an escape route by a man to avoid paying maintenance to his wife and child, the Delhi High Court has ruled.
₹15,000, the city court had held that a man, even if employed on a contractual basis, cannot evade his statutory duties by citing self-imposed financial liabilities. (Shutterstock)” title=”While awarding her ₹15,000, the city court had held that a man, even if employed on a contractual basis, cannot evade his statutory duties by citing self-imposed financial liabilities. (Shutterstock)” />A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar said personal borrowings or long-term financial commitments cannot be used to “wriggle out” of the primary obligation to maintain one’s dependents.
The high court made the observation on May 26 while hearing a plea filed by a man challenging a city court’s April 19, 2025, order directing him to pay interim maintenance of ₹15,000 — ₹8,000 to his estranged wife and ₹7,000 to their minor son.
The man had argued that the lower court passed its order without accounting for his financial obligations, including monthly EMIs, a mediclaim premium covering both wife and child, and the fact that he was employed on a contractual basis.
“A person cannot wriggle out of his/her statutory liability to maintain his/her spouse and dependents by artificially reducing his/her disposable income through personal borrowings or long-term financial commitments undertaken unilaterally,” the bench observed in its verdict released on Saturday.
“Deductions such as house rent, electricity charges, repayment of personal loans, premiums towards life insurance, or EMIs for voluntary borrowings do not qualify as legitimate deductions for this purpose. These are considered to be voluntary financial obligations undertaken by the earning spouse, which cannot override the primary obligation to maintain a dependent spouse or child,” the order added.
The couple got married in February 2009 and had a child, but started living separately in March 2020. The wife later moved court seeking ₹30,000 per month in interim maintenance.
While awarding her ₹15,000, the city court had held that a man, even if employed on a contractual basis, cannot evade his statutory duties by citing self-imposed financial liabilities.
In his petition to the high court, the man contended that the lower court had overestimated his income and failed to consider that EMIs and loan repayments “significantly reduced” his “take-home pay”.
But the court rejected this claim, holding that maintenance is to be determined based on a person’s “free income,” not the amount left after self-incurred deductions.
“Maintenance is not to be assessed based on the net income after such personal deductions, but rather on the “free income” that reflects the actual earning capacity and standard of living of the party concerned,” it said.
Upholding the city court’s order, the high court concluded that the man’s borrowing pattern appeared to be designed to evade his financial responsibilities.
“In the present case, other than stating that an amount of ₹15,092 is being paid towards the property bought in the joint name of the parties, the purpose of taking the other loan appears to be motivated to deny maintenance to the respondent and the child,” the bench noted.