The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a man’s plea challenging maintenance awarded to his estranged wife and five-year-old son. The Court ruled that maintenance is a legal right rooted in social justice and constitutional values, not an act of charity.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clearly stated that maintenance is not a favour but a legal right. In an important judgment, the Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband who had challenged a family court order directing him to pay monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and minor son.
Justice Y Lakshmana Rao rejected the plea and upheld the earlier order passed by the family court in Vijayawada. The Court strongly observed that maintenance is not based on sympathy or charity but is a legal responsibility that arises from marriage and family relationships.
“Maintenance is not charity but a right, and its enforcement is essential to uphold equity, justice, and good conscience,”
the Court said on February 9.
The High Court further explained that the concept of maintenance is deeply connected with constitutional values. It said that maintenance acts as a tool of social justice and falls within the protection of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India. Article 15(3) allows the State to make special provisions for women and children, while Article 39 directs the State to ensure economic justice, equality, and welfare in society.
The case arose after the petitioner, a private employee, approached the High Court seeking to set aside a March 2018 order of the Vijayawada family court. The family court had directed him to pay Rs 7,500 per month to his wife and Rs 5,000 per month to their five-year-old son as maintenance.
The husband’s counsel argued that the family court’s decision was perverse and suffered from material irregularity. He claimed that the order was contrary to the evidence on record and did not consider the probabilities of the case. It was also argued that the order was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
However, the High Court did not accept these arguments. The Court emphasised that maintenance is not a simple contractual arrangement between two individuals. Instead, it is a personal legal liability that arises automatically from the marital and familial relationship. In certain cases, even children can have such obligations towards their parents.
The Court discussed the wider meaning of maintenance under Indian law. Maintenance includes basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education. It is generally available to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
Referring to the landmark decision in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v State of Gujarat, the High Court noted that maintenance is a measure of social justice. It is based on the natural duty of a man to support his wife, children, and parents if they are unable to support themselves.
The Court also observed that the main purpose of maintenance laws is to prevent immorality and destitution and to improve the economic condition of women and children. It described maintenance as a socio-legal obligation that flows directly from marriage and family bonds.
The duty to pay maintenance is recognised under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as well as under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. These laws are designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to ensure that dependents are not left without support.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that maintenance should cover the basic necessities of life so that dependents are not pushed into poverty or forced to live without dignity. It reflects the State’s responsibility to protect weaker sections of society, especially women and children, from neglect and financial hardship.
The High Court further explained that the right to maintenance is linked to the status and financial capacity of the person who is legally bound to provide it. The amount of maintenance should be decided after considering various factors, including the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the claimant, the income and property of the husband, the number of dependents, and the standard of living enjoyed during marriage.
The Court stressed that maintenance cannot be calculated through a strict mathematical formula. It must be fair, reasonable, and sufficient to ensure that the claimant can live with dignity.
The judgment also referred to the broader interpretation of the term “wife” under Section 125 of the CrPC. Courts have expanded the meaning to include divorced women who have not remarried. In some cases, even women in long-term live-in relationships have been given protection to ensure that the purpose of the law is not defeated.
Importantly, the Court reiterated that the obligation to maintain is continuous and cannot be avoided by citing unemployment, financial difficulties, or pending legal proceedings. The liability arises purely from the existence of the marital or familial relationship and continues so long as the legal conditions are satisfied.
With this ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court once again reinforced that maintenance laws are meant to protect the dignity and survival of women and children. The judgment highlights the judiciary’s firm stand that no wife or child should be left helpless or pushed into poverty due to the neglect of a husband or father who is legally bound to support them.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
