Maintenance is a legal right, not charity: High Court

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds a family court order directing Chinnan Kishore Kumar to pay Rs 7,500 per month to his estranged wife and Rs 5,000 to their minor son
• Justice Lakshmana Rao rules that maintenance is a recurring legal entitlement rooted in constitutional safeguards under Articles 15(3) and 39, not a one-time bounty
• Dismissing the husband’s challenge to the 2018 order, HC stresses that the obligation to maintain dependents is continuous and enforceable, independent of other matrimonial disputes

Vijayawada: The Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that maintenance for an estranged wife and child is not an act of charity but a legal right, integral to justice and social equity. Justice Y Lakshmana Rao upheld a family court’s order directing Chinnan Kishore Kumar to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 7,500 to his wife, Chinnam Kiranmayi Smily, and Rs 5,000 to their minor son.

Delivering the judgment on February 9, Justice Rao emphasised that maintenance jurisprudence in India reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring no dependent is left in destitution due to neglect. He noted that courts have consistently held maintenance as a recurring entitlement, not a one-time bounty, arising from marital or familial obligations.

Kumar had challenged the family court’s March 2018 order, arguing it was excessive, arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. He accused his wife of initiating multiple proceedings and sought to have the order set aside.

However, the High Court dismissed his plea, stressing that maintenance is a constitutional safeguard under Articles 15(3) and 39, designed to protect women and children from economic deprivation.

Justice Rao observed that the liability to maintain is continuous and enforceable, independent of property holdings or collateral matrimonial disputes. He described maintenance as a “dynamic instrument of constitutional empathy,” underscoring the state’s duty to shield weaker sections of society.

The court further highlighted that the family court’s decision exemplified a judicious exercise of discretion, firmly rooted in principles of social justice. By affirming the order, the High Court reinforced that maintenance is not merely financial support but a manifestation of equity, justice, and good conscience, ensuring dignity and sustenance for dependents.