Estimated monthly maintenance
₹0 to ₹0
Most-likely centre: ₹0 per month
Tap your way through. Each answer is grounded in 300+ Supreme Court and High Court judgements, the Rajnesh v. Neha 9-factor framework, and the Parvin Kumar Jain 8-point formulation.
Use gross monthly income before deductions. Voluntary EMIs are not deductible per Rajnesh v. Neha.
The duration, the children, the circumstances. These weigh heavily in the multi-factor frameworks the Court applies.
Where the parties live, which law applies, and what relief you are after.
Computed from the inputs you supplied.
Estimated monthly maintenance
₹0 to ₹0
Most-likely centre: ₹0 per month
Per Rinku Baheti v. Sandeep Baheti (2024) and observed Supreme Court practice, lump-sum settlements typically fall between 20% and 33% of the paying spouse's net worth.
Child maintenance is distinct from spousal alimony. It is the right of the child and survives even where the spouse is denied maintenance.
₹0
Cases ranked by similarity to your inputs (income bracket, marriage duration, children, type of maintenance).
An estimator, not a judgement.
Every multiplier in this estimator traces back to a reported judgement. The Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 9-factor framework, the Kalyan Dey Chowdhury 25% rule, the Jasbir Kaur Sehgal 1/3rd Family Resource Cake. We do the arithmetic; the Court keeps the discretion.
The evidence
Every case behind this estimate, from the Supreme Court and nineteen High Courts, 1970 to 2026. Filter by court, by provision and by outcome, and read each award both as the court wrote it and in today’s money.
There is no statutory formula in Indian law. Courts apply the multi-factor frameworks of Rajnesh v. Neha and Parvin Kumar Jain with full discretion. The estimator below distils the judicial benchmarks repeatedly cited in reported judgements.
From Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) 14 SCC 200, re-affirming Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129. The Supreme Court has held 25% of the husband's net salary a "just and proper" benchmark for the wife's permanent maintenance.
award = 0.25 × husband_net_income
Where both spouses earn, the courts triangulate the differential. The estimator applies 33% of the payer's net income minus 25% of the receiver's, scaled by an earning-ratio adjustment derived from Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 (insufficiency of own income) and Delhi HC 2025 self-sufficiency precedent.
award = (0.33 × payer_net) − (0.25 × receiver_net)
From Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (1997) 7 SCC 7, the 1/3rd doctrine. Net income is divided into shares (two for the husband, one for the wife, one per child) so that the wife's share approximates one-third where there are no children.
share = net_income ÷ (2 + 1 + n_children)
Empirically derived from the casebook:
From Rinku Baheti v. Sandeep Baheti (2024), U. Sree v. U. Srinivas (2013) 2 SCC 114, and observed practice. Lump-sum awards typically range 20% to 33% of the payer's net worth. The court rejected "wealth equalisation" in Rinku Baheti: alimony is not a 50/50 division of assets.
From Rakhi Sadhukhan (2025). Many courts now order a 5% biennial hike on the maintenance amount, reflected in the upper bound of the estimator's range.