Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma: Supreme Court raises maintenance to Rs.1.5 lakh

Ratio / rule laid down

Deductions that ultimately accrue to the payer’s own account, such as Provident Fund and ESPPs, are materially different from compulsory tax liabilities and cannot be used mechanically to depress income for maintenance purposes. Maintenance remains subject to enhancement when circumstances change, including materially increased medical needs.

Why this matters for lawyers

• In income-disclosure and maintenance hearings, challenge the treatment of PF and ESPP deductions as equivalent to income tax or professional tax. The relevant distinction is whether the amount is an irreversible current liability or an asset accruing to the earning spouse.
• Place documented school fees, recurring child expenses, EMIs and medical expenditure on record. The Court treated the children’s residence with the mother and her cancer-treatment expenses as relevant to the quantum.
• A final maintenance order should expressly address any interim spousal maintenance already granted. Here, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s final order omitted the Rs.20,000-per-month interim direction.
• The order does not freeze the quantum: the wife may seek further enhancement on proof of a change in circumstances. Compliance with the respondent’s undertaking concerning the vehicle remained governed by that undertaking, with no additional direction required.

Facts

Harpreet Sawhney and Puneet Sharma married on 09.12.2004 and have two sons. After the husband left the wife and children on 21.06.2018, the wife filed divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, together with an application under Sections 24 and 26 for maintenance.

The Family Court initially awarded child maintenance of Rs.37,000 per child per month from 17.09.2019 and Rs.40,000 per child from 01.01.2021. In July 2024 it raised this to Rs.50,000 per child. The Delhi High Court subsequently fixed aggregate child maintenance at Rs.1,25,000 per month from April 2024. During that appeal, the wife was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, and the High Court directed interim spousal maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month from 01.12.2024.

Issues

The appeal required determination of:

• Whether deductions of Rs.1,64,856 from the husband’s estimated monthly income of Rs.4,50,000, including Provident Fund and ESPPs, could be treated as compulsory deductions when assessing maintenance capacity.
• Whether the wife’s medical expenditure and responsibility for both resident children justified enhancement beyond the High Court’s award.
• Whether the High Court’s final order adequately accounted for the earlier interim spousal-maintenance direction.

Court's Reasoning

The Court accepted the wife’s objection to the manner in which the High Court treated deductions. It distinguished income tax and professional tax, which are mandatory payments, from Provident Fund and ESPPs. The latter are not permanent charges: they accrue to the husband’s account and may be withdrawn by him in the future. Their description as deductions therefore did not, without more, justify reducing the income available for maintenance.

The Court also considered the wife’s aggressive breast-cancer treatment and the fact that she was looking after both children, who resided with her. Against that background, it enhanced her maintenance from the interim figure of Rs.20,000 to Rs.30,000 per month. The omission of the interim maintenance from the High Court’s final order was specifically noted.

For the children, the Court enhanced the aggregate amount to Rs.1,50,000 per month, or Rs.75,000 per child, with effect from 1st January 2025. It preserved the wife’s ability to seek a further increase if circumstances changed and allowed three months for the husband to comply. The husband’s undertaking regarding transfer of the vehicle required no separate enforcement direction.

Key Takeaways

• PF and ESPPs are not automatically income-reducing deductions in maintenance computation; their eventual benefit to the earning spouse is relevant.
• Mandatory taxes and professional charges stand on a different footing from deductions that accumulate as the payer’s future financial benefit.
• Medical treatment and the caregiving burden of the parent with whom children reside can justify spousal as well as child-maintenance enhancement.
• A maintenance order must clearly state the relationship between interim and final relief, including the period for which arrears are payable.
• The quantum remains revisable upon a demonstrated change in circumstances.

Important Observations

The Court did not adopt a mathematical formula for maintenance or hold that every payroll deduction must be ignored. Its reasoning turns on the character of the deduction: an irreversible statutory outgo is different from an amount retained or invested for the payer’s eventual benefit. The judgment also illustrates that the Supreme Court may correct both the assessment of disposable income and an omission concerning interim relief while disposing of a quantum challenge.

What Remains Unresolved

The judgment does not specify an effective date for the enhanced spousal maintenance of Rs.30,000 per month. It also does not finally determine the parties’ underlying dispute concerning ownership of the vehicle; that matter remained governed by the husband’s undertaking recorded by the High Court.

Source judgment: Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma · Bench: Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh