Authored By: Laxmi Khatana
Shobhit University
Abstract
The assumption that the family is inherently a safe and nurturing unit often obscures the lived realities of children growing up in abusive or dysfunctional households. Indian maintenance laws are primarily structured around co-residence and dependency, failing to adequately address situations where children leave their homes due to abuse but continue to require financial and emotional support. This article critically examines the gaps within existing legal frameworks, including maintenance provisions, child protection laws, and constitutional guarantees. It argues for a shift towards a dignity based approach grounded in the “best interest of the child” doctrine. By integrating statutory interpretation with constitutional principles, the article proposes a more inclusive understanding of maintenance that prioritizes need, welfare, and dignity over rigid legal formalism.
- Introduction
The family is traditionally regarded as the primary site of care, protection, and emotional development. However, this assumption does not always reflect reality. Many children grow up in dysfunctional families characterized by abuse, neglect, and emotional harm. In such environments, the idea of “home” itself becomes a source of trauma rather than safety.
The psychological impact of such upbringing is profound. Children exposed to abusive environments often experience long-term mental health consequences, including anxiety, depression, and diminished self-worth. Despite this, Indian legal frameworks continue to operate on the presumption that parental homes are inherently safe.
This creates a critical legal gap. When a child leaves an abusive household, the law often fails to provide continued financial support, thereby forcing a choice between safety and survival. As a result, the gap between legal doctrine and lived reality becomes increasingly evident.
- Legal Framework
2.1 Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents in cases of neglect or refusal. While the provision aims
to prevent destitution, its interpretation largely assumes that the child remains within the parental household.
The provision does not explicitly address situations where a child leaves due to abuse. Consequently, courts may hesitate to grant maintenance if the child is not residing with the parents, even when the separation is justified.
2.2 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 imposes an obligation on parents to maintain their children. However, this obligation is generally limited to minors, except in cases involving disability.
This narrow scope fails to account for children who, despite attaining majority, remain economically and emotionally dependent due to ongoing education or vulnerability arising from abusive circumstances.
2.3 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 adopts a more welfare oriented approach.
Key provisions include:
- Aftercare (Section 2(5)): Extends support to individuals aged 18–21 transitioning into society.
- Child in Need of Care and Protection (Section 2(14)): Includes children facing abuse, neglect, or unsafe environments.
- Best Interest Principle (Section 3): Mandates that all decisions prioritize the child’s welfare, including emotional and intellectual development.
Despite its progressive intent, the Act primarily focuses on institutional care. Children who independently leave abusive homes without entering formal systems remain inadequately protected.
- Constitutional Perspective
The foundation of child rights in India lies in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Judicial interpretation has expanded this right to include:
- The right to live with dignity
- Access to education
- Emotional and psychological well-being
Thus, compelling a child to remain in an abusive environment for financial support directly violates the dignity component of Article 21. The Constitution, therefore, supports a broader interpretation of maintenance that goes beyond mere survival.
- Judicial Approach
The Delhi High Court has, in several instances, recognized that parental responsibility may extend beyond the age of majority, particularly in the context of education.
Courts have emphasized that:
- Education is integral to a child’s development
- Financial dependency may continue beyond 18 years
- Maintenance must be interpreted in light of welfare and dignity
However, such decisions remain case-specific and lack uniform statutory backing, leading to inconsistency in application.
- Hypothetical Scenario
Consider a 19-year-old student who leaves her home due to continuous emotional and physical abuse. She pursues higher education while working part-time but struggles to meet her expenses.
Under existing laws:
- She may not qualify for maintenance as a minor
- She may not fall within institutional protection mechanisms
- Courts may deny relief due to her independent residence
This creates a legal paradox where the law acknowledges abuse but fails to provide support once the child escapes it.
- Argument: Towards a Dignity-Based Approach
The central argument of this article is that maintenance should be determined by need and dignity rather than physical residence.
6.1 Best Interest of the Child
The “best interest of the child” doctrine, embedded in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, requires that:
- Basic rights such as education and health are fulfilled
- Emotional and psychological well-being is ensured
- Welfare takes precedence over rigid legal interpretations
This principle must extend beyond institutional contexts to include children living independently due to abuse.
6.2 Identifying the Legal Gap
- Maintenance laws assume co-residence
- Abuse within families is often normalized or ignored
- No explicit recognition of “forced separation” exists
6.3 Proposed Reform
To bridge this gap, the law must:
- Recognize constructive abandonment, where abuse compels a child to leave
- Extend maintenance rights beyond majority in cases of education and vulnerability
- Harmonize maintenance laws with Juveline Justice Act principles 4. Shift focus from residence to actual need and dignity
- Conclusion
Indian law has made significant progress in recognizing child rights, yet it remains constrained by traditional assumptions about family structures. Dysfunctional families challenge these assumptions and expose gaps in legal protection.
A child’s right to dignity cannot be conditional upon remaining in an abusive environment. Legal frameworks must evolve to ensure that children who choose safety are not deprived of support.
Ultimately, the law must move from a framework of control to one of care—where dignity, welfare, and justice form the foundation of maintenance rights.
Bibliography
Legislation
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Constitution of India
Secondary Sources
- NALSA, Child Friendly Legal Services Scheme 2015
- Adoption Regulations 2022
- Adoption Regulations 2017
Cases
- ABC v State (NCT of Delhi) (Delhi High Court)
Keywords
- Child Rights; Maintenance; Abuse; Dignity; Article 21; Juvenile Justice Act; Best Interest Principle
