Wife Can't Claim Maintenance If Her Own Acts Rendered Husband Incapable Of Earning: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla ruled that granting maintenance in such a scenario would result in “grave injustice”, particularly when the husband's earning capacity was destroyed by the criminal acts of the wife's family.

The Court added that while in Indian society, it is well recognized that a husband, even in the absence of regular employment, is expected to undertake suitable work according to his capacity to maintain himself and his family, but the present case stood on a different footing.

"At an earlier stage, the opposite party was capable of maintaining his wife and had sufficient means, but his earning capacity was completely destroyed due to the criminal act committed by the brother and father of the revisionist", the Court remarked

With these observations, the Single Judge dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by a wife seeking interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Briefly put, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushinagar at Padrauna, rejected the wife's application for interim maintenance on May 7, 2025.

The husband was a practising homoeopathic doctor running his own clinic. However, the Trial Court found that on April 13, 2019, while he was engaged in his professional duties, the real brother and father of the revisionist (wife), along with others, arrived at his clinic and hurled abuses.

When the husband resisted, the wife's brother opened fire. The attack resulted in a severe firearm injury where a pellet became lodged in the bone of the husband's spinal cord.

The medical advice on record indicated that any surgical intervention to remove the pellet carries a high risk of paralysis. As a result, the husband is now unable to sit comfortably for even short periods and this has rendered him unemployed and unable to earn any income.

Before the HC, the counsel for the revisionist-wife argued that the impugned order rejecting her interim maintenance plea was illegal and arbitrary, as the Husband is bound to provide maintenance to the wife.

The High Court, however, found that in this case, the factual findings of the Court regarding the husband's medical condition were undisputed.

Justice Shukla noted that while it is the pious obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, in the facts of the present case, the conduct of the wife and her family members had rendered the husband incapable of earning his livelihood.

In this regard, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Shamima Farooqui vs. ShahidKhan (2015), which held that a husband's liability to maintain is contingent upon his ability to earn.

Justice Shukla noted that since the husband's physical incapacity, specifically the risk of paralysis from the bullet in his spine, was caused by the revisionist's side, he could not be held liable for failing to provide maintenance.

Thus, finding that the Trial Court had not committed any material irregularity or manifest illegality, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.