Husband's Loan EMIs & Insurance Premiums Can't Reduce Maintenance for Wife and Child, Rules Kerala High Court

Ernakulam, Kerala: The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling on maintenance law, has held that a husband cannot cite deductions from his salary for loan repayments, insurance premiums, or other personal savings to reduce the maintenance amount payable to his estranged wife and child. Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband, affirming that such deductions are part of his savings and cannot be used to shirk his statutory liability under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Case Background

The case originated from a maintenance claim (M.C.No.255 of 2023) filed in the Family Court, Kannur, by Babija Balakrishnan.M and her minor daughter, Vaiga Sumesh. They sought maintenance from the husband, Sumesh.A, an Instructor at M.E.S. Engineering College. The wife asserted that they had no means of survival and that her husband earned approximately ₹50,000 per month.

The Family Court, on April 10, 2025, ordered the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹6,000 to the wife and ₹3,500 to the child. The husband challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the amount was excessive given his financial commitments.

Arguments of the Parties

The husband, Sumesh.A, contended that his net monthly salary was only ₹19,574 after various deductions. He argued that from this amount, he had to cover his own living expenses, support his aged parents, and pay off a vehicle loan and Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) premiums. He submitted his salary certificate and loan statements as evidence, claiming that these liabilities should be considered when determining his capacity to pay maintenance.

The wife, represented by her counsel, argued that she and her child were entirely dependent on the husband and had no independent source of income. She claimed the husband's actual earning capacity was much higher and that the deductions he cited were voluntary savings and investments that did not diminish his ability to provide for his family.

Court's Analysis and Precedent

Justice A. Badharudeen, upon reviewing the case, unequivocally rejected the husband's arguments. The court noted that while the husband's salary certificate showed a net income of ₹19,574, the crucial question was whether voluntary deductions for loans and savings schemes could be excluded when calculating 'sufficient means' under Section 125 CrPC.

The High Court relied on its previous decision in Surendran K. v. Aswin K.S. and another (2015) , which established that 'sufficient means' refers to a person's total earning capacity or gross income, not just their take-home salary. The court quoted the precedent:

> "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... Even if a considerable amount is being deducted toward Provident Fund, General Group Insurance Scheme, LIC Premium, State Life Insurance, GPF loan or any statutory deductions, except income tax or profession tax, that amount cannot be excluded from reckoning sufficient means..."

Justice Badharudeen observed that husbands often employ a "tactic" of taking on loans and increasing savings contributions to artificially reduce their net salary and thereby lower their maintenance obligations. The court strongly deprecated this practice.

> "It is decipherable that many husbands who are in loggerheads with their wife and who are liable to pay maintenance to the wife and children, as a tactics, 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. This tactics is to be deprecated..."

The court clarified that payments towards loans, insurance policies, and provident funds are essentially personal savings and investments that ultimately benefit the husband. Therefore, these amounts must be considered part of his income when assessing his ability to maintain his wife and child.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that the Family Court's award of ₹6,000 for the wife and ₹3,500 for the child was "very reasonable" and, in fact, "quite insufficient" to meet their needs in the current economic scenario. Finding no merit in the husband's challenge, the revision petition was dismissed.

The court has directed the husband to clear all arrears of maintenance within thirty days, failing which the wife is at liberty to execute the order. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that a person's fundamental duty to maintain their dependents under Section 125 CrPC takes precedence over voluntary financial commitments and personal savings strategies.