According to the Karnataka High Court, deductions like PF contributions, recovery of house rent/furniture, LIC premium, etc., from the salary must not be considered when determining the maintenance amount under section 125 Cr.P.C.
The bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar observed, “…deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.”
In this case, the Petitioner appealed to the High Court challenging the Family Court’s decision, arguing that the maintenance awarded to the wife and child is excessively generous.
While the Petitioner acknowledges earning a salary exceeding 1 lakh, as stated by the Petitioner’s Counsel, Advocate Vishwanath Kanavi, the take-home salary amounts to approximately 77 thousand after necessary deductions. Consequently, the Petitioner asserted an inability to afford the maintenance amounts of ₹15,000 and ₹10,000 for the wife and child, respectively.
The High Court stressed the importance of thoroughly examining all evidence on record and considering various scenarios when determining the appropriate maintenance amount, particularly in cases involving artificial deductions. The Court’s verdict underscored that while certain deductions such as income tax and professional tax are obligatory, the Petitioner’s extensive deductions were viewed as a deliberate effort to evade fulfilling their obligation to provide maintenance to the wife and child.
The Court while noting that deductions such as PF contribution, house rent recovery, etc. cannot be considered while calculating the salary observed, “If this is allowed, then in every case of petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. there would be tendency by the husband to create artificial deductions making an attempt to show lesser take home salary with an intention to mislead the Courts in order to negate to give maintenance or an attempt to award to make lesser amount of maintenance.”
According to the Court, the deductions mentioned above will ultimately benefit the husband alone. Therefore, this cannot justify reducing the maintenance amount.
