In an unusual directive issued on 5 March, the Supreme Court of India ordered the employer of a Gujarat-based man to deduct ₹25,000 every month from his salary and transfer it directly to his estranged wife’s bank account as maintenance for her and their four-year-old daughter, after he refused to pay anything voluntarily.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed the order while hearing a transfer petition filled by Dimpal against her husband, Nishant Pravinbhai Soni, who had sought the transfer of a family court case pending in Bhuj-Kachchh, Gujarat.
The couple has been living separately since 2022 and for four years, the husband had provided no financial support to either his wife or his daughter, whom he had not even met during this period. The ruling is being widely seen as a landmark enforcement measure, underscoring that court-ordered maintenance is not optional and that deliberate defiance will have direct financial consequences.
The Court’s Stern Message To A Defiant Husband
The bench noted that despite an earlier order dated 16 December 2025, the husband had failed to deposit even ₹25,000 towards the travel expenses of his wife and minor daughter for attending mediation proceedings, calling it “unfortunate” that he had “not even bothered” to comply.
A magistrate’s court had already passed an order of interim maintenance in 2024, but the husband had allowed arrears to accumulate to approximately ₹1.38 lakh. When the Supreme Court examined his financial affidavit in which he claimed a monthly salary of ₹50,000 and cited financial constraints including loan repayments and asked whether he was willing to deposit ₹2.5 lakh inclusive of arrears, he declined outright.
The bench responded firmly: “In such circumstances, we are left with no other option but to direct the employer of the respondent-husband… that an amount of ₹25,000 shall be deducted per month from the salary.” The court directed his employer, Rishad Shipping and Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd., to transfer the amount via RTGS directly to Dimpal’s bank account.
Crucially, the bench emphasised that the order was passed keeping in mind the welfare of the couple’s daughter, Avira, stating: “We are much concerned about the welfare and the maintenance of minor daughter Avira… and the petitioner-mother is taking care of Avira single-handedly.”
The Human Cost Of Years Of Non-Compliance
Behind the legal proceedings lies a picture of acute personal hardship. The court was informed that Dimpal’s father had passed away, and that she is currently living with her uncle along with her daughter. The husband had neither contributed towards the child’s upkeep nor met her at any point during the four years of separation.
The Supreme Court had earlier referred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore a lump-sum settlement, after Dimpal sought ₹40 lakh as full and final settlement for dissolution of the marriage. The husband’s continued non-cooperation ultimately exhausted all conciliatory routes. The Supreme Court has since described the situation as an “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” and posted the matter for 21 April to report compliance with its latest directions.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This ruling is more than a maintenance order, it is a judicial reckoning with a troubling pattern that plays out in thousands of Indian homes: a man who acknowledges his income in a sworn affidavit, refuses to pay despite repeated court directions, and is shielded by nothing more than his own audacity.
Little Avira is four years old. She has never received a rupee from her father, nor by the Court’s own account has she seen him in her lifetime. The Supreme Court’s decision to bypass the husband entirely and instruct his employer to act is a powerful signal that the justice system will not be held hostage to a party’s wilful non-compliance. Stronger implementation frameworks, swifter magistrate-level enforcement, and better legal aid for women navigating separation could collectively ensure that no child waits four years for what is already hers by law.
