Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Is A Recurring, Continuing Right; Not A One-Time Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Noting that right to maintenance is not a “one-time bounty” but an ambulatory, recurring entitlement, crystallising afresh upon each breach of obligation, untrammelled by the pendency of collateral matrimonial proceedings, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao held,

“Maintenance, in the contemplation of Indian jurisprudence, is a socio‑legal obligation flowing inexorably from the status of marriage and the familial bond. It is not a mere contractual arrangement, but a personal liability imposed upon the husband, and in certain circumstances upon children, by virtue of the jural relationship itself. The statutory recognition of this duty under Section 125 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' as well as under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, underscores its character as a measure of social justice designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy.”

The Single-Judge went on to explain that judicial interpretation has also expanded the definition of “wife” under Section 125 of CrPC to include divorced women who have not remarried, and in certain contexts, women in long‑term live‑in relationships, so as to ensure that the protective purpose of the provision is not defeated by rigid textualism.

“… maintenance is conceived as a dynamic instrument of constitutional empathy, falling within the protective ambit of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India. It is a manifestation of the State's commitment to safeguard weaker sections of society, particularly women and children, from neglect and economic deprivation. The liability to maintain is continuous, enforceable, and insulated from considerations of proprietary holdings, flowing solely from the existence of the marital or familial relationship. Courts have consistently reiterated that maintenance is not charity but a right, and its enforcement is essential to uphold equity, justice, and good conscience. Thus, maintenance jurisprudence in India stands as a testament to the judiciary's resolve to ensure that no wife, child, or dependent parent is left to languish in penury due to the neglect of those legally bound to sustain them.”, the Court added.

Background

The observations were propounded in a case where the petitioner/husband challenged an order of 2018, whereby the Family Court accepted an application filed by his wife (Respondent 2) under Section 125 CrPC, and awarded maintenance worth Rs.7500 per month to the wife, and Rs.5000 per month to their minor son (Respondent 3).

Challenging the said order, the petitioner contended that the Family Court had erred in granting maintenance as it failed to acknowledge that his wife had failed to produce documentary proof of her allegations. He submitted that his wife had filed multiple cases in order to harass him, the pendency of which the Family Court failed to consider. He also submitted that the maintenance amount was excessive and arbitrary.

In contrast, the wife argued that the petitioner had neglected and refused to maintain her and their minor child. Furthermore, she submitted that Section 125 is a social welfare provision meant to prevent destitution and imposes a legal obligation on the husband to maintain his dependents. In light of the same, the maintenance awarded was submitted to be just and proper. Lastly, she contended that the petitioner's reliance on pendency of other proceedings was wholly misconceived, as the right to claim maintenance is independent and recurring in nature.

At the outset, the Court explained that the cornerstone of the present case rested upon Section 125 CrPC— which is a benevolent provision that seeks to ameliorate the plight of wives, children, and indigent parents forsaken by those legally bound to sustain them. In light of the same, the Court upheld the impugned order and noted,

“The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court in granting maintenance to the Respondent No.2/wife and Respondent No.3/minor child under Section 125 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' exemplifies a judicious exercise of discretion, firmly anchored in the sacrosanct principles of social justice.”

The Court also upheld the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, holding it to be just, adequate, and commensurate with the husband's pecuniary resources, the dependents' reasonable needs, and their prevailing living standards.

“The Respondent No.3 is aged about 8 years. He is with his mother Respondent No.2. He is being imparted with necessary education, nourishment and the quantum of maintenance, Rs.7,500/- per mensem to Respondent No.2/wife and Rs.5,000/- to Respondent No.3/child, bears the imprimatur of reasonableness, calibrated to the Petitioner's earning capacity, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 exigencies, and prevailing socio-economic parameters and subsequent expositions.”, the Single-Judge stated.

With respect to the argument of the petitioner that the present petition constituted a second round of litigation, the Court held,

“The doctrine of lis pendens or forum shopping does not vitiate the Respondent's invocation of concurrent remedies, each tailored to discrete facets of matrimonial discord. This Court reiterates the hallowed principle that maintenance entitlements are not mutually exclusive but operate in tandem to effectuate equity, precluding the Petitioner from leveraging parallel litigations as a shield against his inescapable liabilities.”

Finding no apparent error in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the criminal revision case.

Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1009 of 2022

Case Title: CHINNAN KRISHORE KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Click Here To Read/Download Order