Wife’s Right to Maintenance Under Section 18 Is Enforceable Through Civil Suit; Charge Over Husband’s Property to Secure Minor’s Future is Lawful:  Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Maintenance is a statutory entitlement under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and enforceable as a legal right” – In a pivotal ruling on 10 October 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court clarified the enforceability of maintenance rights under civil law, confirming that a deserted wife and her minor son are entitled to both past and future maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Battu Devanand and A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, upheld a Family Court’s decision directing monthly maintenance, awarding arrears with interest, and creating a charge on the husband's share in ancestral properties.

The Family Court Appeal arose from FCOP No.114 of 2013, where the wife, Mungara Sailaja, and her son sought ₹5,000 per month each as past maintenance from March 2010 to March 2013, along with ₹3,000 per month each as future maintenance, and a charge over the husband’s property. While the High Court reduced the interest rate on arrears awarded by the Family Court, it categorically affirmed the wife's right to maintenance and the legality of securing it through property charge.

“Separate Living Is Justified When Husband Neither Rebutted Allegations Nor Took Steps for Restitution” – Court Rejects Desertion Defence

“If the husband truly believed the wife deserted him, he would have at least issued a legal notice or initiated legal proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights” – High Court

One of the central legal issues in the appeal was whether the wife was entitled to maintenance despite the husband’s claim that she left the matrimonial home voluntarily. The Court found the husband’s version unsupported by any documentary or even credible oral evidence. Instead, the record showed that the wife had initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under FCOP No.12 of 2013, a fact admitted by the husband himself during cross-examination.

The Court observed: “There is no proof for the assertions of the husband nor there is any corroboration for his solitary oral testimony… His stand cannot be accepted as rightly observed by the learned Family Court.”

The wife’s allegations of harassment, interference from in-laws, alcohol abuse, and an extramarital affair were supported by her testimony, a criminal complaint, and the absence of any attempt by the husband to restore cohabitation. The High Court noted:

“The reasoning adopted under the impugned judgment that if the husband’s contention of voluntary desertion were true, he would have issued a legal notice, sounds legal and logical.”

The Court thus affirmed that the wife’s separate living was justified and that the husband had failed to dislodge the presumption of neglect.

“Statutory Right of Maintenance Under Hindu Law Not Subject to Criminal Proceedings Alone” – High Court Confirms Civil Enforcement with Charge on Property

“The Family Court was correct in creating a charge over the husband’s 1/3rd share in the family properties to secure the rights of the minor son and deserted wife” – High Court

Refusing to interfere with the Family Court’s decision to create a charge over the appellant’s property, the High Court ruled that such a direction is well within the legal framework provided under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

The Court noted that the appellant-husband had neither denied his employment nor produced any evidence to rebut his ownership or interest in the properties referred to in Exs.A6 to A23. The evidence, including adangal extracts, established that he had a 1/3rd undivided share in ancestral properties.

The Court firmly stated: “Since there are family properties and the appellant is having a share in an extent of 1/3rd, creation of charge to the extent of his share will benefit the interest of the minor and the wife… The said observation is fit for confirmation.”

It reiterated that the statutory right to maintenance under Section 18 is substantive, not merely discretionary, and the absence of alternative support for the minor child and wife justified securing the award through attachment of property.

“Family Courts Must Adhere to Section 34 CPC – Post-Decree Interest on Maintenance Limited to 6% Unless Commercial”

“Granting 12% interest beyond the decree violates the statutory ceiling under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908” – High Court Partly Allows Appeal

While upholding the maintenance award and other reliefs, the High Court interfered with the interest rate awarded by the Family Court. The lower court had directed 12% interest on the past maintenance of ₹3,60,000 from 11.03.2013 until realisation. The High Court held that such interest was excessive and not in conformity with Section 34 of the CPC.

The Court explained that while pendente lite interest can be judicially calibrated, post-decree interest on non-commercial liabilities is capped at 6% under Section 34(1) CPC, which applies to Family Courts via Sections 10 and 18 of the Family Courts Act.

It ruled: “The legislative cap under Section 34 of the CPC cannot be relaxed unless there is a statutory exemption or binding precedential guidance. No such legal base is brought before this Court.”

Accordingly, it modified the interest rate to 9% for the pendente lite period (11.03.2013 to 10.06.2018) and 6% thereafter, till payment or realisation.

“Oral Allegations Unsupported by Proof Cannot Defeat Statutory Maintenance Claims” – High Court Emphasises Evidentiary Standards in Family Law Disputes

The husband’s failure to file even a single document to support his claims was noted with concern. While he claimed his wife had an independent income and that she was unwilling to care for his ailing mother, no proof was presented in court.

The Court held:“Oral denials and counter-allegations unsupported by evidence cannot rebut a wife's plea supported by documents and legal proceedings.”

Rejecting the husband’s assertion that the wife voluntarily left with intent to remarry, the Court pointed to his inaction in seeking restitution and the wife's own attempts to reconcile.

The Court found that:

“The wife has been living separately from 12.3.2010. Criminal prosecution was initiated by her. There is no legal notice or suit for restitution from the husband’s side.”

The findings of the Family Court, the High Court said, were based on a full appreciation of evidence and needed no interference.

Maintenance Confirmed, Interest Modified, Property Charge Upheld

Concluding that the Family Court’s findings on justification for separation, entitlement to maintenance, and property charge were legally sound, the High Court disposed of the appeal with a limited modification:

“Save the change in the rate of interest, the decree and judgment under challenge shall stand confirmed.”

Thus, the High Court reaffirmed that the wife and child were entitled to ₹3,60,000 in past maintenance (for 2010–2013), ₹6,000 per month as additional future maintenance, and a charge over the husband’s property — with adjusted interest rates of 9% pendente lite and 6% post-decree.

Date of Decision: 10 October 2025