Net Salary is Not the Sole Determinant — Deductions Can’t Defeat Maintenance Obligations: Andhra Pradesh High Court Clarifies in Maintenance Appeal

“Deductions May Be Voluntary and Variable – Gross Salary Shows Earning Capacity Sufficient to Sustain Maintenance”, In a significant ruling delivered on 06 February 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court laid down a clear position on how maintenance liability must be assessed in relation to a salaried person’s income. The Division Bench comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma held that “net salary” alone cannot be treated as the true measure of income, particularly where the salary deductions may be voluntary or fluctuating, and cannot be used as a shield to avoid maintenance obligations under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The Court observed:

“Net salary will depend on the deductions an employee opts for, and it may vary time to time as deductions are not permanent. Whether the deduction is a voluntary one and for saving purpose is also a different issue. Even if the admitted salary is taken as the basis, the respondent can contribute ₹8,000/- for the wife and ₹4,000/- for the son easily.” (Para 16)

The judgment arises out of an appeal challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in F.C.O.P. No.1265 of 2017, wherein the husband was ordered to pay maintenance in slabs for different periods, including prospective maintenance of ₹10,000/- to the wife and ₹5,000/- to the minor son from 27.06.2024. The High Court partially modified this component, reducing the maintenance to ₹8,000/- and ₹4,000/-, respectively, but refused to accept the husband’s plea of limited means based on net take-home salary.

Husband Claimed Net Salary Was Just ₹19,160/-, Seeks Reduction

The appellant-husband, employed as a Fireman in the Naval Dockyard, submitted his payslip (Ex.B1) to show a net salary of ₹19,160/- per month, claiming this made the Family Court’s award unreasonable and excessive. He alleged that he also had dependents—his aged mother and unemployed brother—and that he could not afford the amount directed.

However, the High Court refused to be swayed by such arguments and emphasised that:

“Even if the admitted salary is taken as the basis, the respondent can contribute ₹8,000/- for the wife and ₹4,000/- for the son easily.” (Para 16)

The Court noted that gross income stood at ₹44,249/- per month, and that salary deductions may include non-essential, savings-linked, or voluntarily chosen deductions, which do not reflect financial incapacity. Accordingly, the Court held that gross earning capacity must be taken into account when determining maintenance obligations.

Appellant Failed to Prove Any Statutory or Legal Deduction Justifying Inability to Pay

Despite raising financial hardship as a ground to seek reduction or reversal of maintenance, the husband did not produce any documentary evidence showing the nature or necessity of the deductions. The Court found the claim lacking in credibility and noted that the deductions could easily reflect voluntary savings or non-mandatory schemes.

The judgment thus reiterates the judicial approach that income calculations for maintenance cannot be manipulated by reducing net salary through optional deductions.

Future Maintenance Modified Slightly – Principle on Salary Determination Unaffected

While the High Court found the quantum of ₹10,000/- and ₹5,000/- per month for wife and son respectively (from the date of the Family Court’s order) to be slightly on the higher side, and reduced it prospectively to ₹8,000/- and ₹4,000/-, it clarified that this adjustment was based on equitable consideration of all circumstances—not because the husband's income was insufficient.

The rest of the Family Court’s directions, including arrears of maintenance from 2015 to 2024, remained undisturbed.

In a time when respondents in maintenance cases frequently cite high deductions and low net salary to evade or reduce obligations, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has set a strong precedent: Earning capacity is measured by gross income, not what remains after self-imposed deductions.

This ruling reinforces that statutory duty to support spouse and child cannot be evaded by manipulating payslips or through selective presentation of financial documents.

Date of Decision: 06.02.2026