Maintenance Law|Andhra Pradesh High Court| X v. Y (2025) |Husband's Appeal Allowed as High Court Sets Aside Maintenance Order
- DTN
- Nov 28
- 3 min read
Updated: Dec 1
Confused about where your case stands?
Get a Preparatory Assessment : Factual, Sharp and Tailored to your situation
📄 Get a crisp, slide-based summary of the judgment.
Download the Visual Carousel (PDF)
Follow us on LinkedIn for real, practical family-law insights that matter.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered an important ruling in a maintenance matter, offering clarity on how courts must balance moral obligation with financial capability when fixing maintenance for a minor child. The case arose out of an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act by a husband challenging the Order and Decree passed by the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge–cum–Family Court, Vijayawada in June 2023.
The husband also filed a petition under Section 151 CPC seeking suspension of the operation of the Family Court’s order.
Brief Facts:
Family Court at Vijayawada passed an order and decree dated June 2023, directing payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance to the minor son till he attains the age of majority together with the arrears of maintenance of sum of Rs.2,70,000/- calculated at Rs. 15,000/- per month from December, 2013. Being aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, the husband preferred an appeal against the said order.
Arguments in the Appeal:
Husband:
1. The learned Family Court Judge erred in granting maintenance at Rs. 15,000/- per month to the minor son. Moreover, when the original salary certificate dated March 2016 marked as EX.B12 indicates the salary of the husband at Rs. 15,033/-. The husband therein has stated that since February, 2022, he is working with a company in Vijayawada and drawing an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month.
2. The husband also draws attention of the Court to Ex.XI which is marked through RW.1, the employment confirmation letter of the petitioner therein indicates that the wife is an employee of XYZ Data Service India Private Limited, Hyderabad since June 2022 drawing a gross salary of Rs.1,38,600/- per month.
3. The learned Family Court Judge erred ignoring the documents which were marked as
exhibits before passing the order under challenge.
Wife:
1. There was no representation of the wife despite service of notice.
Findings and observations of the Hon’ble High Court:
1. This Court finds that the learned Family Court Judge has arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the husband is having financial capacity to pay maintenance to the minor son. Such a finding is based on the facts before the Court with respect to drawing of salary of Rs.20,000/- per month by the husband and that the husband is residing in the self-acquired property of his mother. On this basis the learned Family Court Judge has come to a conclusion that the husband is liable to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the minor son from the date of filing of FCOP of 2015 till the date of attaining majority.
2. The learned Family Court Judge also gave a finding that the husband is under a moral obligation to maintain his son. This Court has no hesitation in so far as the moral obligation of the father in maintaining his minor is concerned. However, the learned Family Court Judge erred in disregarding Ex.XI before passing the order under challenge.
3. In so far as, the moral obligation of the father to maintain his minor son is concerned that would remain unfettered. However, the Courts ought to consider the financial capability and the means available for discharging such moral obligations. It is open for the wife and the minor son to take appropriate steps as and when the need for claiming maintenance from the husband / father arises. As of now, the present status of employment of the wife would suffice for taking care of the needs of the minor son.
4. With these observations the Appeal is allowed.
Comments