The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has affirmed that the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is an “ambulatory, recurring entitlement” that is not extinguished by the pendency or outcome of other collateral matrimonial proceedings. Dismissing a criminal revision case filed by a husband, the court held that maintenance is a measure of social justice designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy.
The order was pronounced by Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao in a revision petition challenging an order passed by the IV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Chinnan Krishore Kumar, challenged an order dated March 9, 2018 (in F.C.O.P. No. 1088/2018), which directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹7,500 to his wife (Respondent No. 2) and ₹5,000 to his minor child (Respondent No. 3).
The petitioner contended that the Family Court’s order suffered from material irregularity. He argued that the proceedings were a “second round of litigation” initiated after the withdrawal of a previous maintenance case (M.C. No. 144/2017). He further highlighted the pendency of other legal battles, including a divorce petition (D.O.P. No. 3/2016) and a guardian petition (G.W.O.P. No. 52/2017), suggesting the maintenance claim was a tool for harassment.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Venu Gopal argued that the Family Court erred by granting maintenance based on a chief affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the C.P.C., which he termed a “procedural violation.” He also contended that Respondent No. 2 failed to provide documentary proof for allegations regarding payments of cash and Adapaduchukatnam.
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, Legal Aid Counsel, submitted that the Petitioner, as a legally bound husband and father, cannot shirk his responsibility through technical objections. He argued that maintenance is intended to prevent destitution and that the absence of documentary proof does not negate the credible oral testimony of the wife. He emphasized that the right to maintenance is “independent and recurring in nature.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the jurisprudential foundation of maintenance in India, characterizing it as a “socio-legal obligation flowing inexorably from the status of marriage.”
1. On the Nature of Maintenance: The Court observed that maintenance includes food, clothing, and shelter. Citing Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005), the Court noted:
“The object of maintenance is to prevent immortality and destitution and ameliorate the economic condition of women and children.”
2. On Procedural Technicalities: Justice Rao dismissed the petitioner’s argument regarding the use of affidavits, noting that proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are “summary in nature, designed to dispense expeditious relief sans the rigours of plenary civil adjudication.” The Court held that oral testimony (PW1) was sufficient to discharge the evidentiary threshold.
3. On Parallel Proceedings and Res Judicata: The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the withdrawal of a previous case barred the current one. The judgment stated:
“The right to maintenance thereunder is not a one-time bounty but an ambulatory, recurring entitlement, crystallizing afresh upon each breach of obligation, untrammelled by the pendency or outcome of collateral matrimonial proceedings.”
It further clarified that “res judicata or constructive res judicata finds no foothold” in maintenance claims because the right accrues afresh with each instance of default.
4. On the Husband’s Obligation: Referring to Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015), the Court reiterated that excuses like unemployment cannot absolve a healthy, able-bodied husband of his legal obligation. It emphasized that maintenance is a “dynamic instrument of constitutional empathy” falling under Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India.
Decision of the Court
The Court found the quantum of ₹7,500 for the wife and ₹5,000 for the child (now approximately 8 years old) to be reasonable and calibrated to the petitioner’s earning capacity and the respondents’ needs.
Finding “no scintilla of perversity or material irregularity,” the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case without costs.
- Case Title: Chinnan Krishore Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No: 1009 of 2022
