Personal deductions from salary cannot diminish the obligation to pay maintenance; gross income must be considered for maintenance determination.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Revision Petition (Family Court) has been filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, by the revision petitioner, challenging the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.3,500/- to the respondents herein, who are the wife and the minor child. The Family Court tried M.C. along with O.P.No.879/2023 and rendered common verdict on 10.04.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, who is the respondent in the M.C., and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who are the petitioners in the M.C.

3. I shall refer the parties in this revision as 'husband', 'wife' and ‘child’, for convenience.

4. In this case, the wife and child, who are the respondents herein had approached the Family Court and sought for maintenance to them on asserting that they had no means of maintenance and the husband has been employed as an Instructor in M.E.S. Engineering College and has been earning Rs.50,000/- per month as salary. Accordingly, the wife and child claimed Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, respectively for their maintenance including living as well as educational expenses for the minor child.

5. The revision petitioner/husband filed a counter to the M.C. alleging that the wife had her own source of income and also contending that his monthly income was Rs.19,574/-, out of which he would require Rs.5,000/- per month for his living expenses, including food and accommodation. His further contention was that he had the liability to look after his aged parents and that he also had to remit LIC premiums, vehicle loan instalments, etc., and therefore, the claim for maintenance was liable to be dismissed.

6. The Family Court conducted joint trial of O.P.No.879/2023 and M.C.No.255/2023. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the husband and RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B4 series were marked on the side of the wife.

7. While addressing the contentions on par with the evidence tendered, the Family Court found that as per Ext.A1 salary certificate, the husband had been earning Rs.21,554/- as on February 2024, and his net salary shown therein was Rs.19,574/-. According to the husband, he had to pay for accommodation required for his employment and also had to pay the vehicle loan EMIs. In this regard, he had placed Ext.A3 series, being the receipts of payment of premium towards the LIC policy, Ext.A4, being the vehicle loan instalment statement issued by HDFC Bank, Ext.A5, account statement, as well as Ext.A6, the original LIC policy certificate.

8. While negating the contention raised by the husband to deny maintenance on the premise of paying vehicle loan, accommodation charges and insurance premium, the Family Court relied on the decision of this Court in Surendran K. v. Aswin K.S. and another reported in [ 2015 (4) KLT 682 ] and extracted the relevant portion of the judgment, which are reproduced hereunder, and accordingly, rejected the contention:

"What is contemplated under S.125(1) of the CrPC is 'sufficient means' only and it means, the 'means' to maintain his wife, children and parents. In the case of a salaried employee, what requires to be taken into account under the expression 'means' is his total earning capacity; that is, the gross income. 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. Similarly, it cannot be confined to or limited to net salary, which is getting in hand after various deductions such as GPF, Group Insurance Scheme, LIC Premium, State Life Insurance, GPF loan and various other loans. All the above deductions are long term savings and he will get back the same with attractive interest at the end of his service and he may get some portion of such amounts in advance in accordance with concerned Rules. Therefore, such deductions cannot be deducted or excluded from th