Wife Not Entitled to Maintenance If Her Actions Destroy Husband’s Earning Capacity: Allahabad High Court
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband if her own actions—or those of her family—have directly contributed to the husband’s inability to earn a livelihood.
Upholding the order of the Family Court in Kushinagar, the High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the wife, Vineeta, challenging the rejection of her maintenance claim.
The court observed that granting maintenance in such exceptional circumstances would result in “grave injustice,” particularly when the husband’s earning capacity was destroyed due to criminal acts committed by members of the wife’s family.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla noted that while Indian society ordinarily expects a husband to work and financially support his wife, the present case involved extraordinary and compelling facts that could not be ignored.
Husband Left Permanently Disabled After Shooting
The husband, Dr Ved Prakash Singh, a homeopathic doctor, was earlier capable of maintaining his wife.
However, his life took a devastating turn after he was shot at his clinic during an altercation allegedly involving the wife’s brother and father.
Medical records placed before the court revealed that a pellet remains lodged in Dr Singh’s spinal cord. Doctors have advised that surgery to remove it carries a high risk of permanent paralysis.
As a result, he is unable to sit comfortably for long periods or engage in any meaningful employment, effectively ending his medical practice and income.
Family Court Order Upheld
The Family Court in Kushinagar had initially rejected Vineeta’s application for interim maintenance on May 7, 2025, citing the husband’s physical incapacity.
The High Court agreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that the husband’s inability to earn was undisputed and was directly attributable to violence perpetrated by the wife’s side of the family.
The court reiterated that although a husband has a “pious obligation” to maintain his wife, such an obligation is inherently linked to his capacity to earn.
Where that capacity has been destroyed under circumstances beyond his control, compelling him to pay maintenance would be unjust.
Supreme Court Precedent Cited
In support of its conclusion, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, which laid down the principle that maintenance obligations are inseparable from the earning ability of the person from whom maintenance is sought.
Concluding the matter, the High Court dismissed the wife’s petition, holding that the law cannot be applied mechanically and must take into account the realities and equities of each case.
#AllahabadHighCourt #MaintenanceLaw #FamilyLaw #IndianJudiciary #LegalNews #SpousalMaintenance #CourtRuling #Justice