Case at a Glance
In a pending divorce case, the Delhi High Court had fixed maintenance after treating about ₹1.65 lakh a month as ‘compulsory deductions’ from the husband’s salary. The Supreme Court held that Provident Fund and Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) deductions, unlike income tax or professional tax, are not permanent charges but benefits that accrue to the husband himself. Taking into account the wife’s cancer treatment and the fact that both children live with her, the Court raised the children’s maintenance to ₹1,50,000 a month in total (₹75,000 per child) from 1 January 2025 and the wife’s maintenance to ₹30,000 a month.
The parties married on 9 December 2004 in New Delhi and have two sons. The husband left the matrimonial home on 21 June 2018, and the wife filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari. On 8 January 2021 the Family Court declined pendente lite maintenance to the wife but awarded ₹37,000 per child per month (rising to ₹40,000 from 1 January 2021), recording net incomes of ₹91,000 for the wife and ₹2,70,000 for the husband. The Delhi High Court upheld this on 23 March 2021, and on 12 July 2024 the Family Court enhanced child maintenance to ₹50,000 per child from April 2024.
The wife was diagnosed with breast cancer on 16 August 2024. On 10 December 2024 the High Court directed the husband to pay her ₹20,000 a month. After he admitted non-compliance, the High Court initiated suo motu contempt and later found aggravated contempt, and he tendered an apology. By the impugned orders of 14 August and 2 September 2025, the High Court enhanced maintenance to ₹1,25,000 a month from April 2024, accepting the husband’s income at about ₹4,50,000 a month but deducting ₹1,64,856 as ‘compulsory deductions’.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can Provident Fund and ESPP deductions be treated as compulsory deductions that reduce a husband’s income when fixing maintenance — and was the maintenance awarded adequate?
Savings That Return to the Husband Are Still His Income
The wife argued that the children’s documented monthly expenses were about ₹1,66,847, that ESPP contributions are voluntary, and that her illness limited her ability to make up the shortfall. The Court agreed that the quantum required reconsideration. Distinguishing statutory levies, it observed: “Unlike Income Tax payment or professional taxes which are mandatory taxes,” the “deductions of Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately benefits that would be passed on to the Respondent-husband.” Such amounts are “not permanent charges but rather will accrue into the account of the Respondent-husband” and can be withdrawn later.
The Court also recorded: “We are also mindful of the expenses for the cancer treatment of the Appellant-wife,” noting that both children live with her and are in her care. Observing that the High Court’s final order did not mention the interim ₹20,000 awarded to her, the Court found it fit “to enhance the maintenance to Rs. 30,000/- per month, particularly keeping in mind the medical expenses.” The judgment decides the matter on these facts and does not discuss precedents in its body.
What the Court Actually Held
- Provident Fund and ESPP deductions are not compulsory deductions like income tax or professional tax; they accrue to the husband and cannot be excluded to reduce his income for maintenance.
- The wife’s maintenance was enhanced to ₹30,000 per month, keeping in mind her medical expenses.
- Maintenance for the two children was enhanced to a total of ₹1,50,000 per month (₹75,000 per child) with effect from 1 January 2025, without prejudice to the wife seeking further enhancement on change of circumstances.
- The husband must comply within three months; the appeals were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It closes a common route for reducing declared income in maintenance cases — routing salary into PF or employee stock plans.
- It treats a spouse’s serious illness and the burden of sole child care as relevant to the quantum.
- It offers a clear distinction between statutory levies and savings-type deductions for Family Courts.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Spouses Seeking Maintenance
- Ask for full salary slips and Form 16; check whether PF, VPF or ESPP deductions are being shown as ‘compulsory’.
- Document children’s actual monthly expenses — school fees, tuition, medical and daily needs.
- Place medical records on file where illness affects your earning capacity or expenses.
For Counsel
- Cite Harpreet Sawhney to oppose deduction of PF and ESPP contributions from the paying spouse’s income.
- Distinguish mandatory taxes (income tax, professional tax) from deductions that accrue to the earner.
- Seek enhancement with liberty for future revision where circumstances, such as health, change.
Key Takeaways
- PF and ESPP deductions are the husband’s savings, not permanent charges.
- Only mandatory levies like income tax and professional tax are treated differently.
- Children’s maintenance: ₹75,000 per child per month from 1 January 2025.
- The wife’s cancer treatment weighed in raising her maintenance to ₹30,000.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a husband reduce his income for maintenance by showing PF deductions?
According to this judgment, no. PF and ESPP deductions are benefits that accrue to the husband and are not mandatory charges like income tax or professional tax.
From when does the enhanced child maintenance apply?
The total of ₹1,50,000 per month (₹75,000 per child) applies with effect from 1 January 2025.
Can maintenance be increased again later?
Yes. The Court said the enhancement is without prejudice to the wife seeking further enhancement if circumstances change.
Conclusion
Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma is a practical ruling on how salary deductions are to be read in maintenance disputes. By refusing to let savings-type deductions shrink the paying spouse’s income, and by weighing the custodial mother’s illness, the Court ensured that the children’s standard of living reflects their father’s real earning capacity.
Practical takeaway: In maintenance proceedings, scrutinise every ‘deduction’ in the salary slip — only mandatory taxes should come off; PF and ESPP contributions remain the earner’s money.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com