Baseless Allegations on Fidelity Justify Wife Living Separately – Maintenance Cannot Be Denied on Grounds of Character Attacks Unsubstantiated by Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Maintenance to Minor Child is Absolute and Unquestionable, Irrespective of Father's Objections", On 6th February 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a crucial judgment reaffirming the rights of a wife and minor child to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Division Bench comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma partially allowed the appeal filed by the husband, reducing the quantum of maintenance payable prospectively from ₹10,000 to ₹8,000 for the wife, and from ₹5,000 to ₹4,000 for the minor son, while upholding the entitlement and past maintenance as ordered by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

“Right of Minor Child to Maintenance is Absolute; No Objection to be Entertained Against It”: Court Affirms Undisputed Entitlement

The Bench opened its reasoning with a clear pronouncement that the minor child’s right to maintenance stands on an unshakeable legal foundation, irrespective of his living arrangements or the father's objections.

“There is no dispute that the 2nd petitioner is the minor son of the respondent. The 2nd petitioner, being a minor, is entitled for maintenance and the same need not be doubted. No objections can be entertained in respect of the entitlement of the 2nd petitioner,” the Court declared (Para 11).

The relationship between the parties was not disputed, and the husband’s income was established through payslip evidence (Ex.B1), revealing a gross salary of ₹44,249/- per month. The Family Court had originally fixed maintenance in varying slabs for different periods, including arrears from 2015 onwards.

Dowry Harassment, Desertion, and Domestic Discord

The case arose from an appeal against the order of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam dated 27.06.2024 in F.C.O.P. No.1265 of 2017. The wife alleged harassment over dowry by the husband and his family, with specific claims of inappropriate behaviour by the husband’s brother and neglect during pregnancy, culminating in a criminal case under Sections 498A and 509 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She returned to her parental home during pregnancy and gave birth to their child there.

The husband admitted the marital relationship and paternity but denied all allegations. He also raised arguments around voluntary desertion by the wife, alleged extra-marital relationship, and sought to discredit her claim for maintenance based on non-disclosure of assets, citing the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines.

“Allegations of Infidelity Without Proof Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim”: Court Upholds Wife’s Right to Live Separately

The High Court sternly rejected the husband’s attempts to deny maintenance on the basis of unproven character attacks.

“The 1st petitioner is entitled to live separately. Baseless allegations on the fidelity of the 1st petitioner, coupled with the absence of any steps for restitution of conjugal rights, justify her separate residence and entitlement to maintenance,” the Court noted emphatically (Paras 13–14).

It further rejected the husband's invocation of the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines at the appellate stage, observing that he himself had failed to comply with the disclosure requirements, rendering the objection nothing more than an attempt to derail proceedings.

Net Salary Not Decisive – Court Considers Gross Income and Earning Capacity

The Bench clarified that while the net take-home pay may be lesser due to deductions, such deductions could be voluntary and variable. The respondent, working as a Fireman at Naval Dockyard, was held to have the financial capacity to pay reasonable maintenance despite showing a net salary of ₹19,160/-.

“Net salary will depend on the deductions an employee opts for, and it may vary from time to time... Even if the admitted salary is taken as the basis, the respondent can contribute ₹8,000/- for the wife and ₹4,000/- for the son easily,” the Court reasoned (Para 16).

Partial Modification Only to Future Maintenance – Other Directions Stand Confirmed

While the Court found the maintenance awarded by the Family Court to be broadly reasonable, it considered the future quantum (from the date of order) to be slightly on the higher side and adjusted it downward.

“We are of the view that except with regard to the order for payment of maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and ₹5,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner from 27.06.2024, modifying the same to ₹8,000/- and ₹4,000/- respectively, the impugned orders require no interference,” the Bench ruled (Para 17).

All previous directions, including arrears of maintenance and schedule of payments, were left undisturbed. The Court passed no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment reinforces the settled principles of matrimonial law: a wife living separately due to cruelty or false allegations is entitled to maintenance, and a minor child’s claim is indisputable. Attempts to obstruct or delay maintenance obligations through procedural or speculative objections—especially when raised by a party in default—will not be entertained.

The ruling offers a clear message: “Character attacks without proof do not defeat the statutory right to maintenance.”

Date of Decision: 06.02.2026