Maintenance Is Not Charity: Re-examining Financial Rights in Indian Family Law

Maintenance is often misunderstood. In everyday conversations, it is spoken about as if it is a favour or something one person gives and the other should quietly accept with gratitude. This way of thinking reduces maintenance to sympathy. In reality, maintenance exists because family relationships often create financial imbalance, and the law steps in to correct that imbalance when the relationship breaks down.

In most households, work is divided in ways that are not equal in economic terms. One person earns money outside the home, while the other manages the home, children, elders, and emotional labour. This unpaid work does not appear on paper, but it allows the earning member to build stability and growth. When a marriage ends, the person who stayed out of paid employment does not suddenly gain financial independence. Maintenance exists to recognise this reality.

Maintenance as a Tool of Fairness

At its core, maintenance is about fairness, not dependence. It is meant to prevent one person from falling into hardship simply because they played a different role within the family. The law does not expect a spouse to erase years of dependency overnight or compete on unequal terms immediately after separation.

This is why courts often say that maintenance is meant to ensure survival with dignity. It is not about luxury or comfort. It is about basic security such as food, shelter, healthcare, and the ability to live without fear of financial collapse.

The Problem with Assumptions

One of the biggest challenges in maintenance cases is the habit of making assumptions. Education is equated with income. Online presence is equated with earnings. Past employment is equated with present capacity. These assumptions ignore the complexity of real lives.

Courts have pushed back against this mindset. In Arshi Parveen v. Maqsood @ Sonu, the Delhi High Court made it clear that a wife’s earning capacity cannot be presumed at the interim stage without proof. The husband’s claim that the wife earned money was rejected because it was unsupported by evidence. This judgment reflects a broader judicial approach that maintenance cannot be decided on guesses.

Similarly, in Farha Naz v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court refused to treat social media activity as proof of income. The Court recognised that visibility does not equal financial independence. These decisions are important not just legally, but socially, because they challenge common stereotypes.

Income Does Not Always Mean Stability

Another important aspect often overlooked is the nature of income itself. In today’s economy, many people survive on temporary jobs, part-time work, or irregular earnings. Such income may help in the short term but does not provide real security.

The Kerala High Court has acknowledged this reality by holding that a temporary or insufficient income does not take away a woman’s right to maintenance. This approach recognises that maintenance is not about punishing effort, but about supporting dignity.

Responsibility Does Not End with Convenience

Maintenance disputes frequently involve excuses like loans, EMIs, savings plans, or new responsibilities. Courts have consistently held that personal financial choices cannot override basic obligations.

In Sumesh A v. Babija Balakrishnan M, the Kerala High Court held that loan repayments and savings cannot reduce a husband’s duty to maintain his wife and child. The judgment reinforces a simple principle: human responsibilities come before financial planning.

Similarly, courts have rejected the idea that remarriage dilutes responsibility. In Vappinu v. Fathima, the Kerala High Court held that a Muslim husband cannot deny maintenance to his first wife by citing his duty towards a second wife. The Court recognised that personal choices cannot defeat existing legal obligations.

Maintenance and Moral Judgments

Maintenance law has often been misused as a tool for moral policing. Women are questioned about their character, lifestyle, and choices in ways that men rarely are. Courts are slowly moving away from this approach.

At the same time, maintenance is not unconditional. Where the law recognises certain conduct as a ground for denial, courts examine it carefully. In a decision of the Kerala High Court, it was held that adultery in maintenance proceedings can be proved through circumstantial evidence, since such proceedings are civil in nature. This ensures balance - protection without blind entitlement.

Beyond Husbands and Wives

Maintenance is not limited to spouses. Indian law recognises dependency across family relationships. Unmarried daughters who cannot maintain themselves, elderly parents abandoned by their children, and women left unsupported by their husbands have all been brought within the scope of maintenance laws.

For instance, courts have upheld the right of unmarried adult daughters to claim maintenance from parents under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, children have been held to have a statutory duty to care for their parents. These decisions reflect a wider understanding of family responsibility.

The Role of Honesty and Transparency

Another growing concern in maintenance litigation is the lack of honest financial disclosure. Courts have increasingly criticised attempts to hide income or understate assets.

In one notable case, the Bombay High Court enhanced maintenance after finding that the husband had concealed his real income. The Court made it clear that maintenance proceedings require transparency, and dishonesty will only invite stricter scrutiny.

Rethinking Maintenance

Maintenance law forces society to confront uncomfortable truths such as , that unpaid labour has value, that financial power is uneven, and that separation often affects one party far more than the other. Recognising these truths is not about promoting dependency. It is about ensuring fairness.

Courts today are gradually reshaping the narrative around maintenance. They are insisting on proof instead of assumptions, dignity instead of stigma, and responsibility instead of convenience.

Conclusion

Maintenance is not charity. It is not sympathy or generosity. It is accountability recognised by law.

By moving the focus away from judgment and towards fairness, Indian family law is slowly aligning legal principles with lived reality. Understanding maintenance in this light helps ensure that it remains a tool of justice, not shame and it is a support for dignity, not a favour to be repaid.

Keep Learning!

Join our WhatsApp group for more updates!

Visit Legalwiki.co for more legal updates.