Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma | 2026 INSC 822 | 10 August 2026
What the case was about
The Supreme Court heard civil appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that had partly enhanced child maintenance and closed contempt proceedings against an estranged husband. At stake was how a spouse’s genuine financial capacity should be measured when courts compute maintenance. The wife argued that the High Court had mechanically accepted the husband’s claim that his disposable income was far lower than it actually was, because he had classified voluntary savings as compulsory deductions. Simultaneously, she contended that her own serious illness had been insufficiently addressed in the support calculations, leaving her unable to meet both her medical costs and the children’s expenses. The appeals highlighted whether long-term savings contributions made by one spouse can legitimately be treated as income that is unavailable to the other spouse and the children. The Court found that the quantum fixed by the High Court required reconsideration (para 18).
The key facts
The parties married in December 2004 and have two sons, born in 2011 and 2014. In June 2018, the husband left the matrimonial home. The wife then filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, along with applications for interim maintenance for herself and the children under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act. Over several years, the Family Court and the Delhi High Court passed numerous orders adjusting the amounts payable. The Family Court eventually awarded Rs 50,000 per month per child by July 2024. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the wife was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer in August 2024. The husband’s repeated delays in payment led to contempt proceedings, which the High Court ultimately closed while directing him to clear accrued arrears. By its final judgment, the High Court enhanced total child maintenance to Rs 1,25,000 per month for both children combined and granted the husband six months to settle outstanding amounts. Dissatisfied with the quantum of support and the treatment of the husband’s salary deductions, the wife approached the Supreme Court.
The questions before the Court
The Supreme Court was required to answer three questions:
- Whether the quantum of child maintenance fixed by the High Court was adequate in light of the children’s documented monthly expenses and the husband’s true disposable income.
- Whether voluntary deductions such as Provident Fund and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) should be treated as compulsory deductions for the purpose of determining maintenance.
- Whether the appellant-wife’s interim maintenance should be enhanced considering her diagnosis of aggressive breast cancer and the accompanying medical expenses.
What the Court decided and why
The Court allowed the appeals in part.
First, on the husband’s income, the Court examined his argument that a significant portion of his salary was absorbed by compulsory deductions. It held that Provident Fund and ESPP contributions were not mandatory levies like income tax or professional tax. Rather, they were benefits that would ultimately accrue to the husband’s own account and could be withdrawn by him in the future (para 20). Because these amounts remained his property and were not permanent charges, they could not be treated as outgoings that reduced the monthly income available for maintenance. The Court reasoned that permitting such voluntary savings to deflate the maintenance base would allow a parent to prioritise personal capital accumulation over the immediate needs of dependent children and an ailing spouse.
Second, the Court turned to the wife’s personal maintenance. The Delhi High Court had, by an interim order in December 2024, directed the husband to pay Rs 20,000 per month to the wife. The Supreme Court noted that this interim maintenance was not mentioned in the High Court’s final order of August 2025 (para 22). Given her serious illness and the treatment costs involved, the Court found it fit to enhance her interim maintenance to Rs 30,000 per month (para 22).
Finally, on child support, the Court concluded that once the husband’s voluntary deductions were properly restored to his income base, the total maintenance of Rs 1,25,000 per month for both children was inadequate. It enhanced the amount to Rs 1,50,000 per month—Rs 75,000 for each child—with effect from 1 January 2025 (para 23). The Court made clear that this enhancement would not preclude the wife from seeking still higher support should circumstances change in the future (para 23). The husband was directed to comply with the revised figures and clear arrears within three months.
Why it matters
The judgment establishes a clear principle for maintenance calculations: only mandatory statutory deductions such as income tax and professional tax may be subtracted from gross earnings to arrive at disposable income. Voluntary contributions like Provident Fund and ESPPs, because they remain the depositor’s property and are withdrawable eventually, cannot be used to shrink the income base on which a family’s support is calculated (para 20). This closes a common avenue by which a spouse might claim that money systematically set aside for personal savings or stock accumulation is unavailable for the care of children and a dependent partner.
The decision also reinforces that maintenance obligations are responsive to real-world changes. By enhancing both the child support and the wife’s interim maintenance, the Court recognised that the custodial parent’s health crisis directly affects the welfare of the children and must be reflected in the quantum of relief (para 22). For litigants in matrimonial courts across the country, the ruling provides a practical benchmark against which trial courts can assess whether claimed deductions are genuine outgoings or merely wealth-building vehicles. In doing so, the Supreme Court has ensured that maintenance law continues to serve its protective purpose, especially in situations where the custodial parent faces severe health challenges and the children’s needs remain pressing.