<h2>Supreme Court Enhances Maintenance in Deepa Joshi v Gaurav Joshi</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — The highest judicial forum and final court of appeal under the Constitution, dealing with constitutional and civil matters (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has increased the monthly maintenance payable to a wife from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000, emphasizing that deductions for <span class="key-term" data-definition="Loan repayments (as capital investment) — Deductions for loan installments used to acquire assets, treated as capital rather than essential expenditure (GS3: Economy)">loan repayments</span> cannot be equated with necessary living expenses. The judgment underscores the primacy of a spouse’s right to dignified livelihood over voluntary financial commitments.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench comprising <strong>Justice Sanjay Karol</strong> and <strong>Justice Augustine George Masih</strong> enhanced the maintenance to <strong>₹25,000 per month</strong>.</li> <li>The Court held that loan repayments leading to asset creation are <em>capital investments</em>, not essential expenditure, and therefore should not reduce the maintenance liability.</li> <li>Arrears are to be cleared within three months, with subsequent payments due on or before the 7th of each month.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The case originated under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Provision empowering courts to award maintenance to a spouse under the new civil code (GS2: Polity)">Section 144</span> of the <em>Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023</em>.</li> <li>Initial award by the Family Court: ₹8,000 per month; later enhanced by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Uttarakhand High Court — The apex judicial authority of the state of Uttarakhand, which adjudicates civil and criminal matters (GS2: Polity)">Uttarakhand High Court</span> to ₹15,000.</li> <li>The husband, a bank <strong>Manager</strong>, earns a gross salary of ₹1,15,670 per month.</li> <li>The wife has no independent income and has been living separately since shortly after marriage.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>This judgment is pertinent to <strong>GS 2 (Polity)</strong> as it interprets statutory provisions on spousal maintenance and clarifies the judiciary’s stance on financial commitments in personal law matters. It also touches upon <strong>GS 3 (Economy)</strong> by distinguishing between capital investment and consumptive expenditure, a nuance useful for questions on household economics and gender justice.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <ul> <li>Lower courts must assess a husband’s disposable income without unduly crediting loan repayments that generate assets.</li> <li>Future litigants should present clear evidence of actual essential expenses versus capital‑forming obligations.</li> <li>Policy‑makers may consider codifying guidelines on how financial liabilities affect maintenance calculations to ensure uniformity across jurisdictions.</li> </ul>