Voluntary financial commitments such as personal loans or equated monthly instalments (EMI) 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.
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 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,” the bench observed in its verdict released on Saturday.
{{/usCountry}}“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,” the bench observed in its verdict released on Saturday.
{{/usCountry}}“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”.