Maintenance Estimator
See the range a court is likely to work within for spousal and child maintenance, anchored on the Supreme Court's guidance that 25% of net salary is just and proper.
Enter the respondent's net monthly income to see a range.
How this is worked out
There is no statutory formula for maintenance. The anchor used here is Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017), where the Supreme Court held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper as maintenance for the wife — and that 25% of gross salary was not permissible.
The band shown spans 20% to 33% of net income around that benchmark. Where children are also dependent, the band is widened, capped at 50% of net income — courts are markedly reluctant to leave a respondent with less than half of what they earn. That widening is a presentational heuristic, not a rule of law.
The factors a court actually weighs come from Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), which also made an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities mandatory in every maintenance proceeding.
- This estimator cannot know the standard of living during the marriage, the claimant's qualifications and earning capacity, the respondent's genuine liabilities, or the needs of a child with particular medical or educational requirements — all of which move the figure.
- The claimant's own income reduces need but does not extinguish the claim. This tool offsets only half of it, which reflects how courts weigh rather than subtract it.
- Maintenance is ordinarily awarded from the date of the application, so arrears accumulate while a case runs.
- A one-time settlement in lieu of monthly maintenance is calculated on an entirely different basis and is not modelled here.
This is an estimate for orientation, not a computation you can file on. Rates, exemptions and statutory periods change, and the figure that applies to your matter depends on facts this page cannot know. Confirm it with the chamber before you act on it.
Questions
No. No statute prescribes a percentage. What exists is judicial guidance: in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) the Supreme Court held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper as maintenance for the wife — and expressly said 25% of gross salary was not permissible. Courts work around that benchmark, not to it.
In Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) the Supreme Court set out the framework: the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the claimant and the children, the claimant's own qualifications and earning capacity, the respondent's income and liabilities, and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. It also made an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities mandatory in every maintenance proceeding.
Net. The Supreme Court's 25% benchmark is expressly on net salary, after statutory deductions. Courts do scrutinise what is claimed as a deduction, however — voluntary deductions such as loan instalments taken on after the proceedings began are frequently added back to net income.
Yes. Interim maintenance can be sought during the proceedings, and a claim under Section 144 of the BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC) is available independently of any divorce petition. Rajnesh v. Neha directs that interim applications be decided within 60 days, and maintenance is ordinarily awarded from the date of the application.
This is the usual battleground. The mandatory disclosure affidavit exists precisely for it, and a court can draw an adverse inference where disclosure is evasive, look at lifestyle and standard of living rather than declared income, and in appropriate cases direct production of bank statements, income tax returns and employer records.
Need the real figure, not an estimate?
Bring your papers to the chamber and get the number that actually applies — along with what to do about it.