Supreme Court of India
HARPREET SAWHNEYversusPUNEET SHARMA
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 822
- Decided
- 10 August 2026
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
PF and ESPP deductions are voluntary and should not be deducted from the husband's net income for maintenance, warranting an enhancement of both child and personal maintenance.
Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals by Harpreet Sawhney against Puneet Sharma challenging the Delhi High Court's maintenance order. The husband argued that deductions for Provident Fund and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) were compulsory, reducing his net income, while the wife contended they were voluntary and should not affect maintenance calculations. The Court also considered the appellant's aggressive breast cancer and the high expenses incurred for the two minor children. It held that PF and ESPP contributions are voluntary benefits accruing to the husband and therefore cannot be treated as compulsory deductions for maintenance purposes. Consequently, the Court enhanced child maintenance to Rs.1,50,000 per month and personal maintenance to Rs.30,000 per month, directing the husband to comply within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether deductions such as Provident Fund and ESPPs are to be treated as compulsory deductions for computing the husband's net income for maintenance purposes.
- Whether the quantum of maintenance fixed by the High Court is sufficient in view of the appellant's health condition and the children's expenses.
- Whether the interim maintenance awarded to the appellant should be incorporated in the final maintenance order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151
- Constitution of India
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13(1)(ia), s. 24, s. 26
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the quantum of maintenance fixed by the High Court requires reconsideration. Headnotes† Matrimonial Disputes – Maintenance – Enhancement of – High Court partly enhanced the child maintenance to Rs.1,25,000/- per month for both the children deductions as shown by the Respondent-husband are voluntary in nature and include voluntary contributions such as ESPPs which cannot be treated as compulsory deductions to reduce monthly income for the purposes of maintenance – In addition, it was also submitted that the Appellant’s
Subjects
Enhancement of maintenanceMaintenance enhancedQuantum of maintenance enhancedDeductions of Provident Fund and ESPPsChild maintenanceInterim maintenanceInterim maintenance enhancedDeductions voluntary in natureVoluntary contributionsNot compulsory deductionsTo reduce monthly income for the purposes of maintenanceMedical expenses for cancer treatment
Judgment
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 472 : 2026 INSC 822
Harpreet Sawhney
v.
Puneet Sharma
(Civil Appeal No(s). 10509-10510 of 2026)
10 August 2026
[Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the quantum of maintenance fixed by the High Court
requires reconsideration.
Headnotes†
Matrimonial Disputes – Maintenance – Enhancement of – High
Court partly enhanced the child maintenance to Rs.1,25,000/-
per month for both the children – Plea of the Appellant-wife
that the deductions as shown by the Respondent-husband
are voluntary in nature and include voluntary contributions
such as ESPPs which cannot be treated as compulsory
deductions to reduce monthly income for the purposes of
maintenance – In addition, it was also submitted that the
Appellant’s deteriorating health due to aggressive breast
cancer directly impacted her ability to cover the shortfall in
the minor children’s expenses:
Held: Deductions of Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately
benefits that would be passed on to the Respondent – Unlike
Income Tax payment or professional taxes which are mandatory
taxes, PFs and ESPPs are not permanent charges but rather
will accrue into the account of the Respondent which can be
withdrawn by the depositor in the future – Per interim order, the
High Court had already directed interim maintenance towards
the Appellant for Rs. 20,000/- per month – However, the interim
maintenance is not mentioned in the final order – Maintenance
enhanced to Rs.30,000/- per month, particularly keeping in mind
the medical expenses for the cancer treatment of the Appellant
who is looking after both children who reside with her – Monthly
maintenance enhanced for both children to Rs.1,50,000/-
(Rs.75,000/- per child) with effect from 1st January 2025 – This
will not preclude the Appellant from seeking enhancement as
and when there are change in circumstances – In view of the
* Author
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 473
Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma
undertaking given by the Respondent in the High Court order, no
further direction is required as he has to abide by it – Respondent
to do the needful as directed above within a period of 3 months
from the date of this order. [Paras 18, 20-24]
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Enhancement of maintenance; Maintenance enhanced; Quantum of
maintenance enhanced; Deductions of Provident Fund and ESPPs;
Child maintenance; Interim maintenance; Interim maintenance
enhanced; Deductions voluntary in nature; Voluntary contributions;
Not compulsory deductions; To reduce monthly income for the
purposes of maintenance; Medical expenses for cancer treatment.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
10509-10510 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2025 and 02.09.2025
of the High Court for the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
MATAPP(FC) No. 299 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Priya Hingorani, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shweta Hingorani, S.R. Desai,
Naseem Ahmed, Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Tatini Basu, Ms. Esha Thawal, Ms. Sneha Mondal.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India arises out of the the impugned Final Judgment and Order
474 [2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
dated 14.08.2025 and Clarification Order dated 02.09.2025, passed
by the High Court of Delhi in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 299/2024 with CONT.
CAS(C) 634/2025, which partly enhanced the child maintenance to
Rs.1,25,000/- for both children and closed the contempt proceedings
against the Respondent-husband. The Clarification Order dated
02.09.2025 in CM Appl. 55169/2025 granted the Respondent-
husband six months to clear accrued arrears but did not address
the other two grounds of clarification sought in the clarification
application.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The marriage between the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-
husband was solemnized on 09.12.2004 in accordance with Sikh
rites in New Delhi. Out of the said wedlock of the parties, two sons
were born. The first son, namely, Master Aryan Puneet Sharma
was born on 29.01.2011 and the second son, namely, Master Aadi
Sharma on 24.07.2014.
4. Eventually the matrimonial relationship between the parties
deteriorated and on 21.06.2018, the Respondent-husband left the
Appellant-wife and their two children. In these circumstances, the
Appellant-wife instituted a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as HMA No. 1931/2019
(earlier HMA No. 545/2019), before the Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
5. Along with the divorce petition, the Appellant-wife filed an application
under Section 24 and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (‘HMA’,
for short), 1955, on 17.09.2019, seeking interim maintenance
pendente lite of Rs.2,00,000/- per month for herself and the two
minor children, alongside litigation costs on grounds that, inter alia,
she could not afford the school fees for both children alongside
the EMI payment for the property purchased with the Respondent-
husband on her salary.
6. By an order dated 08.01.2021, the Additional Principal Judge
disposed of the application for interim maintenance, declining
to grant pendente lite maintenance to the Appellant but granted
the same for the minor children. Therein it was observed that the
Appellant-wife’s net monthly income was Rs.91,000/- compared to
the Respondent-husband’s net income of Rs. 2,70,000/-, and that
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 475
Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma
the Appellant-wife is paying the EMIs of Rs. 48,888/- for the flat and
availing the residence of said flat. The Family Court, thus, awarded
Rs.37,000/- per child per month from 17.09.2019 to 31.12.2020,
and enhanced it to Rs.40,000/- per child per month with effect from
01.01.2021.
7. The Respondent-husband challenged the Family Court’s order dated
08.01.2021 before the Delhi High Court in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 42/2021.
On 23.03.2021, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed
the interim maintenance quantum. The High Court observed that the
maintenance estimation involves reasonable approximation rather
than mathematical exactitude. It noted the undisputed net monthly
incomes of the contesting parties and highlighted that the Appellant-
wife independently bore a monthly mortgage EMI of Rs.48,888/- apart
from school fees of approximately Rs.23,000/- per child per month,
as well as the other expenses required to be borne for the children
such as private tuition, sports and other extra-curricular activities.
Issues regarding visitation were left open for the Family Court to
resolve, recording the Appellant-wife’s willingness for bi-monthly,
initially supervised visitation.
8. On 06.05.2021, the Respondent-husband filed an application under
Section 151 CPC read with Section 26 HMA seeking enhanced
physical and virtual visitation, a monitoring mechanism over the
maintenance funds (alleging that the Appellant-wife had swindled
Rs.40 lakhs and accumulated Rs. 1.5 crores in savings), reduction
of maintenance to Rs. 20,000/- per child per month due to pandemic
school fee discounts, and return of personal documents including the
original documents of the Registration and Occupancy certificates of
the house, as well as the original identity documents. The Appellant-
wife filed a reply on 22.07.2022 denying all allegations, pointing
out that even under the Respondent-husband’s proposed formula,
combined costs exceeded Rs.95,000/- per month once the actual
school fees of Rs.55,690/- per month were added.
9. On 06.10.2022, the Appellant-wife filed an application seeking
enhancement of child maintenance from Rs.40,000/- per child
per month (total Rs.80,000/- per month) to Rs.85,000/- per child
per month (total Rs.1,70,000/- per month) submitting documented
monthly child expenditures of Rs.1,66,847/-, increased combined
school fees of Rs.55,690/- per month at Shiv Nadar School and
476 [2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
frequent delays in maintenance remittances by the Respondent-
husband. The Respondent-husband opposed the application on
17.08.2023, claiming the claimed expenses were exorbitant, disputing
the EMI calculation, alleging pandemic fee-waiver retention, and
accusing the Appellant-wife of perjury. Additionally, on 07.10.2023,
the Appellant-wife filed an application seeking transfer of ownership
of a Mahindra XUV500 (Reg. No. UP16BA2073), asserting she
contributed Rs.10,65,000/- out of the total cost of Rs.14,99,577/- and
had exclusively maintained and used the vehicle since 2017. The
Respondent-husband replied on 15.05.2024, asserting registered
ownership and citing a Delhi Transport Department circular dated
29.12.2021 capping diesel vehicle lifespan at 10 years in NCR to
demand the vehicle’s return.
10. On 12.07.2024, the Additional Principal Judge disposed of all three
pending applications, finding that the husband is liable to pay the
enhanced school fee of the children. With effect from April 2024 till
the disposal of the divorce petition, the maintenance of the children
was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- per month per child. The court declined
to adjudicate the dispute of the purchase and ownership of the car
in the proceedings for maintenance.
11. The Appellant-wife challenged the Family Court’s order dated
12.07.2024 before the Delhi High Court in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 299/2024
on 22.08.2024. On 09.09.2024, the High Court issued notice and
summoned the Trial Court record while maintaining interim payments
as decided by the order dated 12.07.2024. It is important to note
that the Appellant-wife was diagnosed with aggressive breast
cancer on 16th August 2024. During the pendency of the appeal, on
10.12.2024, the Delhi High Court took note of the Appellant-wife’s
medical diagnosis of aggressive breast cancer and directed the
Respondent-husband to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month towards the
Appellant-wife with effect from 01.12.2024.
12. On 27.02.2025, the High Court noted the Respondent-husband’s
admission of non-compliance with the interim maintenance payable
to the Appellant. Rejecting the defence that the Appellant had not
produced official medical verification of her carcinoma, the High Court
issued a suo motu contempt notice against the Respondent-husband.
The Respondent-husband challenged the interim medical direction
before this Court in SLP(C) No. 8839/2025. Following an unsuccessful
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 477
Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma
mediation attempt, this Court dismissed the Respondent-husband’s
SLP on 06.05.2025.
13. Despite the dismissal of his SLP, the Respondent-husband
failed to clear the arrears, leading the Delhi High Court to
observe on 16.07.2025 that his conduct amounted to aggravated
contempt, directing his personal presence. On 12.08.2025, after
three successive pass-overs due to the non-appearance of the
Respondent-husband and his counsel, the High Court deemed
his conduct lackadaisical and requested the Director General and
Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, to secure the Respondent-
husband’s physical presence on 14.08.2025. On 14.08.2025, the
Respondent-husband filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional
apology for his absence and disputing the Appellant’s need for
personal maintenance.
IMPUGNED ORDERS
14. On 14.08.2025, the High Court disposing of MAT.APP.(F.C.) 299/2024
and CONT.CAS(C) 634/2025 vide final order and judgment, holding
that the amount awarded by the Family Court was not sufficient, that
the children are entitled to the same facilities enjoyed by their parents,
and enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 1,25,000/- per month from
the month of April 2024. The Respondent-husband also undertook
to execute the necessary documents to transfer the ownership of
the car in favour of the Appellant-wife.
15. On 26.08.2025, the Appellant filed a Clarification Application (CM
Appl. 55169/2025) seeking the following clarifications:
a. That the Respondent-husband be directed to clear the arrears
of interim maintenance accrued from April 2024 till date, within
a time-bound period;
b. Reaffirm that the Respondent-husband’s net disposable
monthly income has been assessed by the Family Court at
Rs. 4,50,000/-, and further, to record that the deductions of Rs.
1,64,856/-, as noted in the Order dated 14.08.2025, comprise
voluntary deductions in addition to statutory deductions;
c. That it be clarified that the contempt proceedings were in fact
initiated on account of the Respondent-husband’s failure to
comply with the earlier Order dated 10.12.2024 of the Delhi
478 [2026] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
High Court, and not merely for non-appearance; and further,
that the Respondent-husband be directed to clear the arrears
from March 2025 to August 2025 in terms of the said Order
dated 10.12.2024.
16. By the Impugned Clarification Order dated 02.09.2025, the High
Court directed the Respondent-husband to pay all arrears within
six months while continuing monthly payments of Rs. 1,25,000/-
without any break.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
17. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is undisputed
evidence that the combined monthly expenses of the children alone
amount to Rs. 1,66,847/- per month apart from the household
obligations borne by the Appellant-wife. Further, they submit that
the deductions as shown by the Respondent-husband include
voluntary contributions such as ESPPs which cannot be treated as
compulsory deductions to reduce monthly income for the purposes
of maintenance. In addition, it was submitted that the Appellant-
wife’s deteriorating health due to aggressive breast cancer directly
impacted her ability to cover the shortfall in the minor children’s
expenses.
RESULT
18. Having considered the submissions and the material placed on
record, we are of the view that the quantum of maintenance fixed
by the High Court requires reconsideration.
19. In paragraph 4 of the High Court’s final order, the salary of the
husband is shown as below:
“4. On the other hand, the Respondent who has
appeared in-person states that apart from his salary,
which according to him is close to Rs.4,00,000/- per
month, he is also getting a bonus on an average @
Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. Thus, his monthly income
is estimated to be Rs.4,50,000/- (approx.). Out of this
monthly income, Rs.1,64,856/- is required to be deducted
towards compulsory deductions, including income tax,
provident fund, professional tax, etc. He is left with
Rs.2,80,000/- (approx.) every month.”
[2026] 8 S.C.R. 479
Harpreet Sawhney v. Puneet Sharma
20. We have considered the submissions of the Appellant that the
deductions are voluntary in nature. We find that deductions of
Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately benefits that would be
passed on to the Respondent-husband. Unlike Income Tax payment
or professional taxes which are mandatory taxes, PFs and ESPPs
are not permanent charges but rather will accrue into the account of
the Respondent-husband which can be withdrawn by the depositor
in the future.
21. We are also mindful of the expenses for the cancer treatment of the
Appellant-wife who is looking after both children who reside with her.
22. Per interim order dated 10.12.2024, the Delhi High Court had already
directed interim maintenance towards the Appellant for Rs. 20,000/-
per month. We note that the interim maintenance is not mentioned
in the final order dated 14.08.2025. We find it fit to enhance the
maintenance to Rs. 30,000/- per month, particularly keeping in mind
the medical expenses.
23. We accordingly enhance monthly maintenance for both children to
a total of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 75,000/- per child) with effective from
1st January 2025. This will not preclude the Appellant from seeking
enhancement as and when there are change in circumstances.
24. In view of the undertaking given by the Respondent-Husband in
paragraph 7 of the High Court order, no further direction is required
as he has to abide by it. The Respondent-husband is directed to
do the needful as directed above within a period of 3 months from
the date of this order.
25. With above observations, the Civil Appeals are disposed of
accordingly. All IAs with these appeals, if any, shall be disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Enhancement of maintenance"Sign in to search