How Indian Family Courts Assess Salary, PF, ESOPs, Bonuses, Stocks, Investments And Actual Income While Deciding Maintenance
NEW DELHI: A salary slip may show one figure, the bank account may reflect another, and the employee’s CTC may include PF contributions, annual bonuses, ESOPs, RSUs and investment-related income. So, which figure does a Family Court actually consider while determining maintenance in India?
The answer is neither the gross salary alone nor the take-home salary alone.
Courts examine the overall financial capacity of the parties, including actual earnings, statutory deductions, voluntary savings, bonuses and incentives, employment benefits, investment income, assets, liabilities, dependants and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.
HOW DIFFERENT FINANCIAL COMPONENTS ARE TREATED
| Financial Component | How It May Be Considered |
| Salary and regular allowances | Generally treated as recurring income |
| Bonus and incentives | May be included where actually earned; recurring variable pay may be assessed over a reasonable period |
| Mandatory PF and statutory deductions | Relevant deductions, depending on their nature and circumstances |
| VPF and other voluntary retirement savings | Cannot automatically be used to reduce apparent disposable income |
| Stocks and mutual funds | Primarily assets; dividends and realised gains may constitute income |
| ESOPs and RSUs | Relevant employment benefits; treatment depends on vesting, exercise, sale and actual liquidity |
| Interest, dividends and rental income | Generally relevant as income from other sources |
| Investment corpus | Relevant to assets and overall financial capacity, but not automatically treated as monthly income |
| EMIs used for acquiring or building assets | Cannot automatically be given priority over a lawful maintenance obligation |
The exercise is therefore not as simple as adding every asset to monthly salary.
A court must distinguish between regular income, deferred compensation, voluntary savings, investment assets, realised returns and genuine financial liabilities.
The objective is to determine the person’s real financial capacity, while ensuring that neither party artificially inflates income nor suppresses resources to influence the maintenance determination.
WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES COURTS TO EXAMINE
For summary maintenance proceedings governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita after 1 July 2024, Section 144 BNSS is the present provision dealing with maintenance of wives, children and parents, corresponding to the earlier Section 125 CrPC framework. Maintenance may also arise under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act and other applicable laws.
The leading nationwide authority is Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. The Supreme Court standardised financial disclosure in maintenance cases. Its affidavit specifically requires disclosure of income from rent, interest, shares, dividends, capital gains, FDRs, mutual funds, stocks, and debentures, in addition to employment income. Financial assets and investments must also be disclosed.
The Delhi High Court’s Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma framework similarly calls for salary, commissions, incentives, bonus, perks, perquisites, stock-option benefits, retirement benefits, DEMAT accounts, stocks, shares and investments.
So, “it never entered my salary account” is not a legal answer to non-disclosure.
PF, VPF AND NPS: CAN SAVINGS REDUCE THE MAINTENANCE BASE?
In Sanjay Kumar Baranwal v. Bhavna Kumari, decided on 28 March 2024, the husband’s November 2022 gross monthly salary was about Rs.1.79 lakh. Apart from income tax, deductions included PF, VPF and NPS, leaving net monthly pay of about Rs.1.29 lakh.
The husband argued that he was financially worse off than when maintenance was originally fixed.
The Delhi High Court rejected that submission. It noted that the lower net amount was partly because larger amounts were being deducted towards savings and that he was securing his future through PF, VPF and NPS.
The principle is practical: a person cannot necessarily increase voluntary savings and then present reduced bank credit as proof of reduced maintenance paying capacity.
But this does not mean every mandatory PF contribution is freely spendable cash. Courts must distinguish statutory deductions from voluntary wealth-building and examine the actual compensation structure.
BONUS AND VARIABLE PAY: YES, THEY CAN COUNT
Bonus is not invisible merely because it is paid annually.
Kusum Sharma expressly requires salaried persons to disclose commissions, incentives, bonus, perks and other employer benefits. Even the value of stock-option benefits forms part of the prescribed financial disclosure.
A court can therefore examine whether a bonus is guaranteed, performance-linked, exceptional, recurring or already received.
Where variable compensation recurs year after year, annualised earnings may present a more realistic picture than fixed monthly salary alone. A genuinely exceptional one-time payment, however, should not automatically be projected as permanent monthly income forever.
STOCKS, MUTUAL FUNDS AND INVESTMENTS: ASSET OR INCOME?
Both—but in different ways.
A stock portfolio, mutual-fund holding or fixed deposit is an asset. Dividends, interest and realised capital gains are income. Rajnesh v. Neha expressly requires disclosure of these categories.
Owning Rs.20 lakh in shares does not mean receiving Rs.20 lakh as annual salary.
Equally, a litigant cannot claim financial incapacity while concealing substantial liquid investments or recurring investment income.
Unrealised market appreciation should not mechanically become monthly income. The portfolio can still matter while determining assets, liquidity, lifestyle and overall financial capacity.
That distinction between income and assets in maintenance cases is crucial.
ESOPS AND RSUS: THE MODERN MAINTENANCE BATTLE
For employees in technology companies, startups and multinational corporations, basic salary may tell only half the financial story.
In Shikha Badhani v. Hemant Badhani, 2025: DHC:7888-DB, the Delhi High Court considered a husband employed as a Senior Computer Scientist with Adobe Systems. The Court noted an annual income exceeding Rs.1 crore, along with additional employment benefits including RSUs, stock options, international travel allowances and investments.
On the facts, the Court enhanced cumulative maintenance for the wife and child from Rs.35,000 to Rs.1.5 lakh per month.
Another important Delhi High Court ruling followed.
In Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Smita Shrivastava & connected matters, decided on 29 August 2025, the High Court upheld the production of financial records, including bank statements, investment records, DEMAT material and ESOP details, because such records were relevant to income, assets or financial standing.
But this shouldn’t be turned into another internet myth.
Not every unvested ESOP is automatically this month’s income.
Relevant questions include: Has it vested? Is it exercisable? What is the exercise price? Were RSUs vested? Were shares sold? Was any gain actually realised? Is the grant conditional upon continued employment?
The more vested, liquid, and regularly realised the equity compensation is, the more relevant it is to actual financial capacity.
SUPREME COURT 2026: ASSET-BUILDING DEDUCTIONS CANNOT HIDE REAL CAPACITY
The Supreme Court’s decision in Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, 2026 INSC 370 is particularly important for anyone trying to understand deductions while calculating maintenance.
The husband, a bank manager, had a gross monthly income of Rs.1,15,670. The controversy included deductions and loan repayments. The wife argued that voluntary financial commitments tied to asset creation should not reduce maintenance; the husband relied on his reduced disposable income and liabilities.
The Supreme Court held that loan repayments contributing to the creation or acquisition of assets cannot be treated as necessary expenditure to substantially reduce maintenance liability.
The Court enhanced maintenance from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 25,000 per month.
The message is broader than a home-loan EMI: courts can examine whether a claimed deduction is genuinely unavoidable or whether it prioritises wealth creation over a maintenance obligation.
THE 2026 SUPREME COURT STOCK-OPTION EXAMPLE—AND ITS LIMIT
In the case of Vijayalakshmi R. v. C.L. Balaji, decided by the Supreme Court on 21 July 2026, a consent settlement defined the husband’s annual income to include monthly salary, bonus, stock options and other employer income after statutory dues for a particular child-maintenance arrangement.
The courtroom history is equally revealing.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court directed both parties to place their latest income-tax returns, CTC particulars and details of immovable properties on record. On 30 January 2026, the Court also interacted with their son in chambers regarding his higher-education plans.
But this judgment must not be misreported.
The Supreme Court was interpreting a specific settlement between the parties. It did not create a universal rule that maintenance must equal 20% of income or that every stock option must automatically be treated as present monthly income.
GROSS CTC VS TAKE-HOME SALARY: WHICH ONE WINS?
Neither, by itself.
In Dhirendra Kumar v. Swati Saista, 2026:DHC:6090, decided on 30 July 2026, the Delhi High Court reiterated that maintenance assessment is not limited to a single salary figure.
Salary slips, Form 16, income-tax material, recurring employer credits, statutory deductions, reasonable liabilities, and expenditure on dependent children must be examined together.
Gross CTC may include deferred or notional components that are not currently spendable.
Take-home salary, on the other hand, may be reduced through voluntary savings.
The court’s job is to reconstruct the real economic position from evidence—not blindly adopt whichever number favours one side.
WHAT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED?
A salaried spouse with investments should ordinarily be ready with:
- Salary slips and Form 16
- Income-tax returns
- Bank statements
- CTC and compensation breakup
- Annual bonus and incentive records
- PF, VPF and NPS contribution details
- ESOP and RSU grant, vesting and exercise statements
- DEMAT and broker statements
- Mutual-fund and fixed-deposit records
- Dividend, interest and capital-gain details
- Loan documents and EMI schedules
- Documents showing genuine dependent obligations
Maintenance litigation is increasingly document-driven. Concealment can ultimately be more damaging than an inconvenient number.
THE REAL TEST IS FINANCIAL CAPACITY, NOT JUST TAKE-HOME PAY
For husbands, one of the biggest mistakes is assuming that maintenance will be calculated only on the amount finally credited to the bank account.
For claimants, the opposite mistake is treating every investment, stock holding, ESOP or asset as if it were recurring monthly income.
Neither approach is legally sound.
A Family Court looks at the substance of the financial position. Genuine statutory deductions and unavoidable liabilities matter. But voluntary savings, investment contributions or asset-building expenses cannot automatically be used to project a lower paying capacity.
At the same time, owning shares, mutual funds, property, or other assets does not by itself mean their entire value becomes monthly income.
The correct enquiry is broader: What does the person actually earn? What resources are realistically available? Which liabilities are genuine? What assets and investments exist? What standard of living do the financial records reveal?
Maintenance should ultimately be determined on disclosed evidence, not on a selectively presented salary slip or an exaggerated asset valuation.
That is why, in modern maintenance litigation, the financial affidavit, bank statements, tax returns and investment records often become as important as the salary certificate itself.
CONCLUSION
While fixing maintenance in India, courts do not rely on a single salary figure in isolation.
PF contributions, bonuses, ESOPs, RSUs, stocks, mutual funds, and other investments can all become relevant, but courts examine each component according to its real financial character.
Recurring bonuses and realised investment returns may count as income. Stocks and investment portfolios may demonstrate financial capacity without automatically becoming monthly salary. ESOPs and RSUs require closer scrutiny of vesting, exercise, sale and actual realisation. PF and retirement contributions must be examined to distinguish compulsory deductions from voluntary savings.
Similarly, genuine liabilities deserve consideration, but expenses that primarily create or preserve assets cannot automatically be used to suppress apparent maintenance capacity.
The correct approach is therefore neither “maintenance on take-home salary” nor “maintenance on total CTC”.
The court must assess the complete financial record and determine the person’s actual income, available resources, legitimate deductions, liabilities, assets and standard of living before arriving at a fair maintenance figure.
FAQs
- Is PF deducted while calculating maintenance?
Mandatory PF may be considered, but voluntary savings cannot automatically reduce maintenance capacity. - Are ESOPs and RSUs counted for maintenance?
Yes, they can be relevant depending on vesting, exercise, sale and actual realisation. - Can courts examine DEMAT accounts in maintenance cases?
Courts may examine stocks, mutual funds, and other investments to assess financial capacity. - Is annual bonus included in maintenance income?
It may be, especially where bonuses or incentives form a recurring part of earnings. - Are unrealised stock gains treated as monthly income?
Not automatically. Unrealised gains are different from realised income, though the investment remains a relevant asset.
