The Supreme Court’s April 2026 Answer to the Most Common Argument in Every Maintenance Hearing.

By Advocate Karan Dua | Vintage Litigation, New Delhi | Published: July 2026

I have heard this argument more times than I can count.

A husband sits across from the maintenance court judge. His salary certificate shows a gross figure. Then his lawyer produces a list: home loan EMI, car loan EMI, personal loan, credit card minimum payment, insurance premium. By the time the deductions are done, the number left over is presented as the “real” income available for maintenance — and that number, coincidentally, leaves almost nothing for his wife.

The argument sounds reasonable. After all, what he actually takes home after obligations is what he can realistically afford to pay, isn’t it?

On April 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of India gave a clear and specific answer to this question in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi. The answer: no — not all EMIs and loans are equal, and asset-creating loan repayments cannot be used as a shield against a legitimate maintenance obligation.

This article explains exactly what the SC held, which liabilities courts will and will not accept as maintenance defences, and what it means for your specific case — whether you are the spouse seeking maintenance or the spouse resisting it.

1. The Case: A Bank Manager, a Long List of EMIs, and ₹25,000/Month

The husband in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi was a manager at Canara Bank. His gross monthly salary was ₹1,15,670. On paper, that is a substantial income — well above the median for Delhi and far above what most Family Court judges would treat as the baseline for a maintenance calculation.

But between deductions and EMI repayments, the husband argued his actual disposable income was far lower. The Family Court in Uttarakhand accepted this argument and awarded the wife a meagre ₹8,000 per month. The Uttarakhand High Court found this insufficient and enhanced it to ₹15,000 per month.

The wife came to the Supreme Court.

A bench of the Supreme Court enhanced the maintenance further to ₹25,000 per month — more than three times the Family Court’s figure. In doing so, it laid down a principle that goes well beyond this one case.

The Court’s core holding:

“Not all liabilities are created equal. Maintenance must be based on a balanced assessment of the husband’s earning capacity and the wife’s reasonable needs. The maintenance obligation cannot be defeated by the mere fact of loan repayments, particularly where those loans are asset-creating in nature.”

2. The Critical Distinction: Asset-Creating vs Genuine Unavoidable Liabilities

The Deepa Joshi ruling does not say that a husband’s financial obligations are irrelevant to maintenance. It says that courts must look at what kind of obligation it is before deciding how much weight to give it.

The Supreme Court draws a clear line between two categories:

Category A — Genuine Unavoidable Liabilities

(Courts may consider these)

These are obligations that exist independently of the husband’s choices, cannot reasonably be avoided, and do not create or accumulate wealth for him:

• Medical treatment costs — hospitalisation, ongoing treatment for a serious illness, disability-related expenses that genuinely reduce his net available resources
• Pre-existing debt entered into before the marriage and the separation, for purposes unrelated to asset acquisition
• Statutory obligations to legally dependent parents or children from the current marriage — courts acknowledge these as genuine competing obligations
• Rent payments where the husband has no property and is genuinely paying for accommodation (note: this is weaker where the wife has been removed from her matrimonial home and is herself paying rent)
• Tax deductions — TDS, professional tax, and statutory deductions that reduce gross-to-net income

Category B — Asset-Creating EMIs and Loans

(Courts will NOT reduce maintenance for these)

These are loan repayments that, while they do reduce the husband’s monthly cash flow, are simultaneously building him an asset that he will own free of encumbrance once the loan is repaid:

• Home loan EMI — every payment increases his equity in a property he will own outright. He is not “spending” this money; he is accumulating wealth through it.
• Car loan EMI — same principle. The vehicle is an asset he retains. Courts particularly scrutinise car loans where the husband claims inability to pay maintenance while driving a financed vehicle worth several lakhs.
• Investment loan — a loan taken to invest in stocks, mutual funds, or other financial instruments is wealth-building by definition and will not be treated as a liability that reduces maintenance.
• Business loan where the husband is the direct beneficiary of the business — courts treat this as an income-generating investment, not a personal financial burden.

The Deepa Joshi Court was explicit: “A rent payment, tax deduction, medical liability, or duty towards legally dependent parents may be relevant. But a loan that creates or acquires an asset cannot be used as a weapon to crush the wife’s maintenance claim.”

3. Why This Matters in Delhi Family Courts Right Now

Delhi’s family courts process thousands of maintenance applications every year. The EMI argument is raised in essentially every contested maintenance hearing where the husband is a salaried employee. The Deepa Joshi ruling gives both sides of that argument clear, current, Supreme Court authority.

If you are the wife seeking maintenance:

Your lawyer can now cite Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi (April 16, 2026) directly when the husband produces his EMI list. The response is not “EMIs don’t matter” — it is “these specific EMIs are asset-creating and the Supreme Court has held they cannot be used to reduce the maintenance assessment.” Ask the court to require the husband to disclose what asset or financial instrument each loan corresponds to, and to distinguish between unavoidable liabilities and wealth-accumulating repayments.

If you are the husband facing a maintenance claim:

This ruling tells you what will and will not work as a financial argument. A home loan EMI will not substantially reduce your maintenance liability. Presenting it as your primary defence is a weak strategy that the Deepa Joshi precedent now weakens further. What works better: presenting a realistic, honest picture of your actual earning capacity and genuine unavoidable obligations — including dependent parents, genuine medical costs, and pre-existing debt — alongside a maintenance figure that reflects the wife’s real needs rather than an inflated claim.

Courts in Delhi increasingly award maintenance in the range of 20–30% of a husband’s net take-home income as a starting benchmark. Where the gross income is substantially higher than the net due to asset-building EMIs, the gross is the more relevant figure for the maintenance assessment.

4. The Rajnesh v. Neha Framework Still Applies — With the Deepa Joshi Gloss

The Supreme Court’s comprehensive maintenance framework from Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 remains the governing standard. It requires both parties to file sworn affidavits of income, assets, liabilities, and expenses. The Deepa Joshi ruling does not replace this — it refines how the liabilities column of that affidavit is assessed.

Under the combined framework as it stands in July 2026:

Step 1: Both parties file income and expense affidavits per Rajnesh v. Neha directions. Courts in Delhi typically use the prescribed format from that ruling.

Step 2: The husband’s gross income is established — salary slips, bank statements, ITR. Where the husband is self-employed, the self-employed income calculation methodology applies separately.

Step 3: The liabilities column is scrutinised under the Deepa Joshi principle. Asset-creating EMIs are distinguished from genuine unavoidable obligations. Courts may ask the husband to produce the loan agreement and describe what asset the loan funded.

Step 4: The wife’s actual needs are assessed — current expenses, lifestyle during the marriage, age, employability. Where the wife is qualified but voluntarily not working, the notional income principle applies (per the Allahabad HC’s May 2026 ruling in Dr Garima Dubey).

Step 5: Maintenance is determined at a level that accounts for the husband’s genuine (not financial-engineered) capacity and the wife’s real (not inflated) needs.

The Deepa Joshi ruling addresses Step 3 specifically and clearly.

5. Related Principles: What Courts Also Consider

Lifestyle income: Even where a husband’s declared income is low, courts look at lifestyle evidence — the car he drives, the house he lives in, the holidays he takes, the school his children attend, his social media activity. A husband who drives a financed luxury car and claims inability to pay maintenance creates an obvious contradiction that courts notice. We covered the lifestyle income principle in detail in our article on how courts calculate maintenance.

Salary suppression: Some husbands arrange for their salary to be partially paid through informal channels, or take a reduced official salary in an employer they control. The Supreme Court in earlier rulings has held that courts can look behind formal salary structures where the husband is a director, partner, or substantial shareholder in an employer entity.

What cannot be used to reduce maintenance: Under the Deepa Joshi framework, a husband cannot successfully use:

• Home loan EMIs
• Car loan EMIs
• Business investment loan repayments
• Voluntary luxury expenses (private school fees for children from a new relationship, high-end memberships)
• Self-created financial obligations entered into after the separation specifically to reduce apparent disposable income

6. The Broader 2026 Maintenance Landscape

Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi (April 16, 2026) is one of several consequential maintenance rulings from the SC this year. Read alongside the latest SC judgments on maintenance, the picture that emerges is consistent: courts are moving toward maintenance assessments based on realistic earning capacity, not financial engineering. Income suppression, EMI shields, resignation from employment — all of these are increasingly scrutinised rather than accepted at face value.

The complementary ruling on the other side of this — the Allahabad HC’s May 2026 decision that a qualified wife who deliberately refuses to work cannot claim full maintenance — confirms that 2026 maintenance law is demanding honesty from both sides. The paying spouse cannot hide behind EMIs; the receiving spouse cannot hide behind deliberate unemployment.

How Vintage Litigation Can Help

Advocate Karan Dua has represented clients on both sides of maintenance proceedings — wives building the strongest possible maintenance claim and husbands mounting a realistic, honest, and legally grounded defence. Whether you are seeking interim maintenance in the next few weeks, challenging a maintenance order you believe is excessive, or building your financial disclosure affidavit with full awareness of what courts will and will not accept, we can advise you on the specific facts of your case against the current 2026 case law.

Online first consultation. Fully confidential. No commitment required.

Call / WhatsApp: +91-9999483959 Email: Adv.karan.dua67@gmail.com O-11A, Basement, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110014 Monday–Saturday, 9 AM – 6 PM. WhatsApp available after hours.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. My husband says his home loan EMI leaves him with no money for maintenance. Is that a valid legal argument?

No — not under the Supreme Court’s April 2026 ruling in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi. The Court specifically held that asset-creating loan repayments (like home loan EMIs) cannot be used to reduce maintenance assessments, because the husband is simultaneously accumulating an asset through those payments. Courts assess maintenance against gross earning capacity, not disposable income after asset-building deductions.

Q2. What types of loans CAN legitimately reduce my maintenance liability?

Courts may consider: genuine medical treatment costs; pre-existing debt not related to asset acquisition; statutory obligations towards legally dependent parents or children; unavoidable rental payments (where you have no property and cannot be expected to own one). These must be documented with loan agreements, medical bills, or rent receipts — courts do not accept bare statements.

Q3. The Family Court accepted my EMI list and gave a low maintenance order. Can my wife appeal this?

Yes. The Deepa Joshi ruling is now the governing Supreme Court precedent on this point. If a Family Court or High Court has accepted asset-creating EMIs as a full defence against maintenance without distinguishing between genuine liabilities and wealth-building repayments, that order is vulnerable to challenge on appeal. The ruling was specifically used by the SC to reverse a Uttarakhand HC order and impose a substantially higher maintenance figure.

Q4. I have a car loan AND a home loan. Which is more likely to be rejected as a defence?

Both are asset-creating. The home loan is likely to be viewed more unfavourably because the asset created (a property) is typically of greater value and the wealth-building nature is more obvious. A car loan occupies slightly different ground — courts look at the value and purpose of the vehicle. A basic family car may be treated differently from a financed luxury vehicle. But neither is a strong maintenance defence after Deepa Joshi.

Q5. I took a personal loan before separation to pay for a family emergency. Does that count?

Potentially yes — a genuine pre-existing personal loan taken for a non-asset purpose (medical emergency, family obligation) falls closer to the “genuine unavoidable liability” category than an asset-building EMI. You would need the loan agreement showing the purpose, the disbursement records, and ideally documentation of what the loan was spent on. Courts assess these on their specific facts.

Q6. I voluntarily took additional loans after my wife filed for maintenance. Will courts consider those?

Very unlikely. Courts are alert to financial arrangements made after the maintenance application — including new loans — that appear designed to reduce apparent disposable income. A loan taken after separation with no clear emergency purpose is a particularly weak argument in maintenance proceedings and may actually reflect poorly on your credibility before the court.

Q7. My husband is self-employed and claims business loans are eating his income. How do I challenge this?

Under the Rajnesh v. Neha income disclosure framework and the Deepa Joshi principle, you can require him to produce: business loan agreements; evidence of what asset or business activity the loan funded; profit and loss accounts; bank statements showing loan disbursements and what they were spent on. Where a business loan is generating income-producing assets, it is an investment, not a personal liability. Our guide on how courts treat self-employed income in maintenance cases covers the self-employed-specific issues in more detail.

Q8. The husband in Deepa Joshi was earning over ₹1 lakh/month. Does this ruling apply to lower-income husbands?

Yes — the principle applies regardless of income level. The distinction between asset-creating EMIs and genuine unavoidable liabilities is a legal principle, not an income-level rule. However, courts do calibrate maintenance amounts to the actual facts of each case, and the Rajnesh v. Neha framework considers the wife’s real needs alongside the husband’s capacity. The Deepa Joshi ruling ensures that the capacity assessment is not distorted by EMI shields.

Q9. Can I reduce maintenance by arguing my bank reduces my salary through deductions before I receive it?

Statutory deductions (TDS, PF, professional tax) are genuine and courts account for them in arriving at net take-home income. However, courts also look at gross income as the starting baseline for capacity assessment, and statutory deductions do not eliminate a husband’s gross earning capacity. Where deductions are voluntary (additional PF contributions, voluntary insurance premiums), courts may not treat these as reducing the assessment base.

Q10. My wife’s maintenance case has a first date next week. What should I do about the income disclosure?

File a complete, honest income disclosure affidavit in the format directed by Rajnesh v. Neha — salary slips, bank statements, ITR for the last three years. In the liabilities section, carefully distinguish between genuine unavoidable obligations and any asset-creating EMIs. Do not present the EMI list as your primary defence — it will not succeed after Deepa Joshi. Focus instead on building a realistic picture of your actual capacity and the wife’s actual needs. Consult a maintenance lawyer before the first date, not after the interim order is already passed — getting the first response right matters enormously.

Adv. Karan Dua — Advocate, Delhi High Court | Matrimonial & Family Law Adv. Karan Dua is a Delhi-based advocate specialising in maintenance proceedings, income disclosure strategy, contested divorce, and complex multi-forum matrimonial litigation. He practises before the Delhi High Court and family courts across the NCR. Learn more about Vintage Litigation or get in touch.