Retirement Doesn’t End Responsibility”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms Maintenance to Estranged Wife

“A 38-year-old retired army man is not unemployable — fitness, discipline, and skill imply capacity to earn. Maintenance obligations survive retirement,” held the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissing a husband's plea against maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act.

In a judgment that family law advocates are calling “a strong reaffirmation of the principle of continuing spousal responsibility”, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 25th September 2025, upheld concurrent findings directing a retired army personnel to pay monthly maintenance of ₹2,500 and ₹500 towards rent to his estranged wife.

Family and criminal law practitioners say the decision clarifies two essential points of law:

1. Revisional courts cannot interfere unless there is perversity or illegality in lower court findings

2. Retirement from government service, including the armed forces, does not dissolve the legal obligation to maintain a dependent spouse

“A Capable Person Cannot Plead Retirement as an Excuse”: Court’s View Welcomed by Bar

The Bench took serious note of the husband's failure to produce any pension records or income details, while alleging he was surviving on ₹5,000 per month and was unemployed. On the other hand, the wife had submitted evidence that she previously received maintenance through deductions from his Army salary until retirement.

Justice Mallikarjuna Rao observed: “Such a background inherently implies a certain level of physical fitness, discipline, and skill, which would reasonably qualify him for employment as a security guard… In the absence of any such contention or evidence to the contrary, the Court is justified in concluding that the appellant is indeed capable of securing and maintaining gainful employment.” [Para 17]

Advocate Y. Sudhakar, appearing for the wife, termed the ruling a “vindication of the rights of dependent women who are often left stranded post-separation”. He added:

“Far too often, husbands attempt to hide behind technicalities — retirement, medical excuses, or exaggerated financial hardship — to evade maintenance. This judgment sends a clear message: such evasive tactics won’t succeed without hard proof.”

“Not the Forum to Re-Argue Evidence”: Revisional Jurisdiction Rightly Constrained

Advocates practising criminal revision lauded the Court’s reaffirmation of the limits of its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s observation in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, the High Court held:

“This Court is not required to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence already appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court unless there is clear non-appreciation or misappreciation of evidence.” [Para 10]

Senior Advocate M. Surya Kumar, for the petitioner, had urged that the maintenance awarded was excessive and that the wife had properties and income. However, the High Court noted that no documentary evidence was placed on record by the husband regarding her alleged assets, or even his own financial state.

“This is a textbook example of how revisional courts should not become a third appellate forum,” said Advocate R. Nagesh, a criminal law expert, who noted that the dual findings of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court were reasoned and well-supported.

Court Balanced the Rights: Alternate Accommodation Awarded, But No Protection or Residence Order

Interestingly, while the wife sought relief under multiple provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court limited the relief only to maintenance and rent.

The Trial Court had refused to grant a protection or residence order, considering the couple had been living separately since 2003 and relations had irretrievably broken down. The High Court noted that the wife had not challenged the denial of these reliefs, and those findings had attained finality.

“The petitioner/wife has not questioned the propriety of the order refusing to grant a protection order and residence order. Thus, the said findings have attained finality.” [Para 12]

Still, the Court directed ₹500 per month to be paid towards alternate accommodation, recognizing the wife’s continued vulnerability and lack of independent shelter.

Maintenance is a Continuing Duty — Not a Temporary Obligation

The Court emphasized that maintenance is not extinguished by retirement or strained relations. The husband’s earlier compliance — via salary deductions — and his subsequent refusal post-retirement formed the factual foundation for the maintenance claim.

Ex-Army personnel, like any other citizen, remain bound by statutory duties of maintenance. The presumption of earning capacity was applied in light of the husband’s age (38), military background, and health.

The Court concluded: “The impugned order and judgment are neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted.” [Para 19]

An Important Ruling on Spousal Support, Post-Retirement Obligations, and Limits of Revision

The judgment serves as a template for courts handling maintenance claims involving government or defence retirees, clarifying that mere cessation of salary does not absolve the duty to support a dependent spouse.

It also reinforces the discipline of revisional review, ensuring that concurrent factual findings by Magistrate and Sessions Courts are respected unless serious procedural violations are shown.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025