Introduction
In Ankush Kumar Parashar v. Sapna @ Mona & Anr., the Delhi High Court re-evaluated maintenance awarded to a wife and child. The court held that a husband’s financial obligations, such as home loan EMIs and caring for his parents, can be considered when determining maintenance awards. The court revised the sum from ₹25,000 to ₹17,500 per month, balancing support for dependents while respecting the husband’s liabilities.
Main Story
The case stemmed from a family court order granting the wife and child ₹25,000 monthly as maintenance. The husband appealed, claiming the trial court wrongly assessed his income at ₹70,000 per month, whereas his actual disposable income stood at approximately ₹36,000 after accounting for expenses. He argued that he bore rent, home loan EMIs (₹11,000), and expenses for both himself and his parents. The wife did not present evidence of her own income or specify her or the child’s expenses.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna acknowledged these concerns. The court applied a balanced approach, stating: “The maintenance amount must ensure adequate support for the wife and child, while also taking account of the petitioner’s liability towards home loan and his responsibility towards parents.” The court reduced the maintenance to ₹17,500 per month.
The Delhi High Court has repeatedly held that voluntary financial obligations, like EMIs or personal loans, do not relieve a husband from maintenance responsibility. In earlier rulings, the court emphasized that maintenance must be assessed on the husband’s “free income,” not on earnings reduced by self-imposed liabilities.
The guiding principle remains the statutory duty to maintain dependents. While courts do not permit evasion of this duty through financial planning, they also recognize real obligations like aging parents or necessary housing costs. In this case, the husband’s obligations went beyond mere voluntary expenses, warranting a more nuanced award.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Implication
The ruling highlights that courts can consider genuine financial burdens such as home loans or parental duties when balancing maintenance awards. It underscores that while statutory duty to support dependents remains paramount, courts also strive for fairness by accounting for realistic liabilities. Lawyers must present credible documentation of such responsibilities. Citizens can view this case as an example of justice tailored to personal economic realities, ensuring dependents are supported without ignoring individual burdens.
