Personal Loans Or EMIs Are Voluntary Financial Obligations, Can't Override Husband's Obligation To Maintain Wife: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that personal loans or EMIs are voluntary obligations which cannot override the obligation of an earning spouse to maintain the other spouse or the child.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar said that 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 the purpose of maintenance.

“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 Court said.

“….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 undertaken unilaterally,” it added.

The bench said that maintenance is not to be assessed based on the net income after such personal deductions, but rather on the “free income” that reflects the actual earning capacity and standard of living of the party concerned.

The Bench dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court order allowing the wife's application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The husband was directed to pay a monthly payment of Rs. 15,000 towards the maintenance of the wife and the child.

It was the husband's case that the family court failed to consider the fact that he was consistently paying the EMIs towards a property loan. He also said that he was paying Mediclaim policy in which the wife and their child were also covered.

The Bench rejected the husband's contention that EMIs and other loan obligations eroded his take-home income. It added It that the wife was suffering from a medical condition and was simultaneously responsible for the care and upbringing of the minor child born out of the wedlock.

“ In such circumstances, the inability to engage in full-time or gainful employment cannot be viewed as a voluntary choice, but must be seen in light of the practical limitations imposed by her dual responsibilities. The requirement of maintenance, therefore, stands not only in the absence of income but also on the inability to earn, due to genuine and compelling circumstances,” the Court said.

It added that the Family Court rightly held that such an obligation flows from Section 24 of the HMA, and a husband, even if employed on a contractual basis, cannot shirk his statutory responsibility under the pretext of financial liabilities voluntarily undertaken.

“The findings of the learned Family Court are based on cogent material on record, including bank statements, tax returns and income affidavits submitted by both parties…,” the Court said while rejecting the plea.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 659

Click here to read order