A complete legal guide explaining whether stocks, mutual funds, DEMAT holdings, dividends, capital gains and other investments are considered while deciding maintenance in India, and what both spouses must disclose before the court.
NEW DELHI: Courts do not decide maintenance based on a salary slip alone. A person may show a modest monthly salary but still hold substantial stocks, mutual funds, fixed deposits, DEMAT investments, dividend income or other financial assets. Similarly, a spouse seeking maintenance may have investments or savings that materially affect the assessment of financial need.
So, what does the court actually examine?
The answer is the overall financial position of both parties.
This includes salary, business income, bank accounts, investments, dividends, capital gains, properties, liabilities and other assets that may reveal the true financial capacity of either spouse.
The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 made this disclosure framework explicit. The prescribed Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities requires parties to disclose income from shares, dividends, capital gains, FDRs, mutual funds, stocks and debentures, along with movable and immovable assets.
But one distinction is crucial:
An investment is an asset. It is not automatically equivalent to monthly income.
A mutual fund portfolio worth ₹20 lakh cannot simply be treated as ₹20 lakh of income. The court must examine its value, returns, liquidity, source of funds and what it actually shows about the person’s financial capacity.
Yes, investments are relevant in maintenance cases
The legal position is clear: stocks, shares, mutual funds, FDRs, bonds, debentures, dividends and capital gains can all be relevant while deciding maintenance.
Under the Rajnesh v. Neha disclosure format, parties must disclose income from rent, interest, shares, dividends, capital gains, FDRs, post-office deposits, mutual funds, stocks, debentures, agriculture, and business.
The affidavit also requires disclosure of investments and their value, in addition to bank statements and other financial records.
Therefore, salary is only one part of the maintenance calculation.
A person cannot rely on a low salary figure if substantial investments, dividend receipts or other assets suggest greater financial capacity.And the same standard applies to the person claiming maintenance.
The financial disclosure cannot be one-sided: the income and investments of both parties are relevant wherever the law requires the court to assess their means and financial dependence.
INVESTMENT VALUE AND INVESTMENT INCOME ARE NOT THE SAME THING
This is where maintenance disputes often go wrong.
Suppose a person owns mutual funds currently valued at ₹20 lakh. That does not automatically mean that the person earns ₹20 lakh, nor does it mean the court can mechanically divide ₹20 lakh by 12 and call the result monthly income.
There are two different financial questions.
First: What income is the investment generating?
This may include:
dividends, interest, realised capital gains, redemption proceeds, rental income or other recurring returns.
Second: What does the investment portfolio show about the person’s overall financial capacity?
Even where an investment does not generate regular monthly income, its ownership, value, liquidity, and related transactions may still be relevant when assessing the party’s assets and financial status.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected a fixed mathematical formula for maintenance. In Rajnesh v. Neha, it held that maintenance is meant to support the dependent spouse and is “not as a punishment to the other spouse”. It also expressly stated that no straitjacket formula exists for fixing maintenance.
Therefore:
Portfolio value is relevant. Portfolio income is relevant. But portfolio value is not automatically monthly income.
WHAT DOES THE COURT ACTUALLY EXAMINE?
A court deciding maintenance will ordinarily look at the financial picture as a whole.
This includes both parties’ actual income, reasonable needs, standard of living during marriage, dependants, liabilities, assets, employment, earning capacity, and other relevant circumstances.
In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court held that whether the applicant has an independent source of income and whether that income is sufficient are relevant considerations. The respondent’s actual income, legitimate expenditure, dependants and liabilities also have to be considered.
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle in Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 INSC 961. One of the factors specifically recorded by the Court was the “independent income or assets owned by the applicant.” The Court again stressed that maintenance cannot be fixed through a rigid formula.
That is why a maintenance case should never become a one-sided audit.
If the husband’s salary, investments and lifestyle are relevant, the applicant’s income, assets and investments are also relevant where the governing provision requires their consideration.
WHICH MAINTENANCE LAWS ARE RELEVANT IN 2026?
Different maintenance proceedings can arise under different statutes.
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the current statutory provision corresponding to the earlier Section 125 CrPC. It permits maintenance for a wife unable to maintain herself, her children and her parents, subject to the statutory requirements.
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during matrimonial proceedings. Significantly, Section 24 is gender-neutral: either the wife or husband may apply where that spouse lacks independent income sufficient for support and necessary litigation expenses.
Section 25 HMA deals with permanent alimony and maintenance after the decree and permits the court to consider the income and property of the parties along with other circumstances. Sections 24 and 25 remain part of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 20 permits monetary relief, including maintenance, while Section 23 empowers the Magistrate to grant interim orders. Section 20 requires monetary relief to be adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the accustomed standard of living.
The exact statutory entitlement therefore depends upon the proceeding. But the financial inquiry increasingly follows the disclosure framework settled in Rajnesh v. Neha.
CAN A WIFE’S MUTUAL FUNDS REDUCE OR DEFEAT HER MAINTENANCE CLAIM?
Yes, if the investments establish sufficient independent income or financial resources.
But merely showing that some mutual funds exist is not enough in every case.
This distinction was sharply illustrated by the Delhi High Court in Suranjan Saha v. Rumpa Saha, decided on 23 December 2025.
The husband argued that the wife was financially capable because her records showed a ₹82,000 transfer to her brother and investments in mutual funds.
The Delhi High Court was “not persuaded by this argument.”
The Court found no proof of salary, business income or sufficient independent earnings. It held that a solitary transaction and some savings did not establish a steady independent income sufficient to maintain the wife and child.
That judgment is important because it prevents another extreme.
A spouse cannot simply produce one mutual fund statement and argue:
“She owns investments, therefore maintenance must be zero.”
The real question is:
What is the value of those investments, where did the money come from, what income do they generate, are they regular financial resources, and are those resources sufficient?
Evidence matters more than labels.
CAN A HUSBAND’S MUTUAL FUNDS BE USED TO ASSESS HIS FINANCIAL CAPACITY?
Absolutely. A husband cannot claim poverty through his salary affidavit when his financial records tell a different story.
In Sandeep Walia v. Monika Uppal, decided by the Delhi High Court on 18 July 2022, the husband claimed that he was unemployed and did not have the means to pay maintenance.
The record, however, showed various financial circumstances, including money invested in mutual funds and regular dividend income.
The Court concluded that he was “not truthful in disclosure of his correct income” and rejected his plea that he had no means to pay maintenance.
The legal lesson is simple:
Courts are not required to look the salary column in the eye when the financial trail indicates greater means.
DELHI HIGH COURT’S 2026 JUDGMENT MAKES THE POINT EVEN CLEARER
A very recent example comes from Dinesh Kumar v. Neeti & Ors., decided by the Delhi High Court on 4 April 2026.
The husband claimed he worked as a supervisor and earned only ₹12,000 per month.
But the record showed earlier substantial bank transactions, dividend and mutual fund entries and investments in an ICICI Prudential Tax Plan. The High Court noted investments of ₹55,000 and ₹31,000 made on 29 March 2017 and another ₹30,000 on 30 March 2017.
The Court observed that these investments prima facie indicated financial capacity beyond what was being claimed. It also found deficiencies in the disclosure relating to the husband’s previous business and financial records.
The High Court ultimately held that his income could not be assessed below ₹20,000 per month and upheld total interim maintenance of ₹13,000 per month for the wife and two minor children, with the ₹7,000 already awarded in the earlier Section 125 CrPC proceedings to be adjusted.
This is precisely why mutual funds and investments in maintenance cases cannot be dismissed as irrelevant paperwork.
Sometimes, they become part of the financial trail through which the court tests whether the declared income is credible.
DEMAT ACCOUNTS CAN MATTER EVEN IN PERMANENT ALIMONY
The Supreme Court went further in Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 INSC 961.
While examining permanent alimony, the Court considered the husband’s financial records, including old DEMAT account records.
The Court recorded that his DEMAT details revealed investments of approximately ₹5 crore at the relevant time, apart from valuable immovable properties and his professional income. The Court treated these records as relevant to ascertaining his financial position.
The Supreme Court ultimately fixed a one-time settlement of ₹5 crore for the wife, having regard to the overall circumstances, including the matrimonial standard of living and the husband’s financial capacity.
Again, the Court did not say:
“₹5 crore investment equals ₹X monthly maintenance.”
It examined the overall financial capacity.
That distinction must be preserved.
WHAT INVESTMENT RECORDS CAN BECOME IMPORTANT EVIDENCE?
In a serious maintenance dispute involving investments, the useful financial trail can include:
DEMAT statements, Consolidated Account Statements, mutual fund statements, broker statements, dividend credits, redemption statements, capital-gain statements, bank statements, Income Tax Returns, AIS/Form 26AS records, fixed-deposit statements and documents showing ownership or transfer of investments.
The Supreme Court’s Rajnesh v. Neha affidavit itself requires relevant income, investments, assets, liabilities, ITR information and three years of bank statements.
A single screenshot showing a portfolio balance should therefore not be treated as the entire case.
The real questions are ownership, source of funds, present value, transactions, income generated, withdrawals and consistency with the financial affidavit.
WHAT IF THE INVESTMENTS ARE ONLY OLD SAVINGS?
Old savings remain assets, but they do not automatically establish present monthly income.
This is exactly why Suranjan Saha matters.
The Delhi High Court distinguished past savings or isolated transactions from a steady independent income sufficient for maintenance.
So, if an applicant has ₹3 lakh in an old mutual fund created years earlier but earns nothing today, the court must examine the actual facts.
On the other hand, if a person claims complete financial dependence while regularly investing substantial sums, redeeming funds, receiving dividends or operating a sizeable securities portfolio, those records deserve proper examination.
Maintenance is determined by evidence—not convenient descriptions of the same money.
CAN AN SIP ITSELF BE CALLED INCOME?
Not automatically.
An SIP is ordinarily an investment outflow, not income.
But regular, substantial SIP contributions may still serve as relevant circumstantial evidence when a person claims he or she has virtually no disposable resources.
The court would have to examine where the SIP money came from, whether the contributions are continuing, the party’s actual income, liabilities and the complete financial record.
A ₹25,000 SIP cannot simply be added to salary as if it were another ₹25,000 of earnings.
But it also cannot necessarily be ignored when someone simultaneously claims an inability to meet basic financial obligations.
BOTH SIDES MUST DISCLOSE — NOT JUST THE HUSBAND
This is perhaps the most important practical point.
The financial disclosure regime should not operate selectively.
A husband cannot conceal shares, mutual funds or business income.
A wife claiming maintenance cannot conceal material income or assets either.
The Supreme Court’s framework asks for the income, assets and liabilities of the parties, because maintenance must be based on the real financial position rather than allegations alone. The Court has also held that an applicant’s independent income and assets are relevant factors.
Maintenance proceedings cannot become a system where one person’s salary is examined to the last rupee while the other person’s investments are treated as untouchable.
Financial disclosure has to work both ways.
CONCLUSION
Maintenance law cannot operate as a one-way financial audit of the husband.
If a husband’s salary, bank accounts, investments, dividends and assets are relevant, then the wife’s income, mutual funds, shares, savings and other financial resources must also be examined wherever the law requires assessment of her actual need and financial independence.
A husband should not be treated as financially capable merely because he owns investments, while substantial assets held by the claimant are ignored. At the same time, investment value cannot mechanically be converted into monthly income for either side.
The correct approach is simple:
Disclose the finances of both parties. Examine the evidence equally. Decide maintenance based on actual need and capacity—not gender-based assumptions.
FAQs
- Are mutual funds counted as income in maintenance cases?
Not automatically. Returns and realised gains may count as income, while the investment corpus is treated as an asset. - Can a wife’s investments affect maintenance?
Substantial income, stocks, mutual funds or assets can affect the amount of maintenance. - Can courts check a husband’s demat account?
Courts can examine DEMAT holdings, dividends, and investment transactions to assess actual financial capacity. - Are unrealised stock gains treated as monthly income?
Unrealised gains are not automatically converted into monthly income. - How can hidden investments be proved in maintenance cases?
Through DEMAT statements, mutual fund records, bank statements, ITRs, AIS, dividend credits and redemption records.
