Allahabad High Court Rules Wife's Actions Can Nullify Maintenance Rights
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment stating that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband if her actions or omissions contribute to his incapacity to earn a livelihood. This ruling reinforces the principle that maintenance obligations are intrinsically linked to the husband's ability to work, rather than being an absolute right.
Upholding Family Court's Decision in Kushinagar Case
The high court upheld the decision of the Family Court in Kushinagar, which had rejected the maintenance application filed by the wife, Vineeta. Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, while dismissing the criminal revision petition, emphasized that granting maintenance in such circumstances would result in grave injustice. The court noted that the husband's earning capacity was destroyed due to criminal acts committed by the wife's family, making it unfair to hold him financially liable.
Case Background: Doctor's Career Ruined by Family Confrontation
The husband, Dr. Ved Prakash Singh, a homeopathic practitioner, was previously able to support his family. However, his professional life came to a halt after he was shot by his wife's brother and father during a confrontation at his clinic. A pellet remains lodged in his spinal cord, and the surgery to remove it carries a high risk of paralysis. This has left him unable to sit comfortably or maintain employment, rendering him physically incapacitated.
Legal Principles and Supreme Court Precedent
The Allahabad High Court, in its decision dated January 19, cited the Supreme Court judgment in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) to support the principle that maintenance is contingent upon the husband's ability to earn. While Indian society generally expects a husband to work and maintain his family, the court highlighted that this pious obligation is not absolute and depends on his financial capacity.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment sets a precedent that maintenance claims can be denied if the wife's conduct, directly or indirectly through her family, leads to the husband's inability to earn. The Family Court had initially rejected the woman's application for interim maintenance on May 7, 2025, and the high court's affirmation underscores the importance of fairness in such cases. The court concluded that the husband's physical incapacity was undisputed and directly caused by the actions of the wife's side of the family, thereby justifying the denial of maintenance.
