The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband if her own family members have rendered him incapable of earning his livelihood through criminal acts.
The Single Bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a wife, upholding the Family Court’s decision to reject her application for interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Background of the Case
The revisionist had approached the High Court challenging the order dated May 7, 2025, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushinagar at Padrauna. The Trial Court had rejected her application seeking interim maintenance in Case No. 600 of 2019.
The Trial Court’s decision was based on the finding that the husband, a Homeopathy doctor, had become incapable of earning his livelihood due to a firing incident orchestrated by the revisionist’s family.
According to the records, on April 13, 2019, while the opposite party (husband) was engaged in his professional work at his clinic, the real brother and father of the revisionist, accompanied by four others, arrived and hurled abuses. When the husband resisted, the revisionist’s brother opened fire, causing a firearm injury.
The judgment noted that “the pellet is still lodged in the bone of his spinal cord, and as per medical advice, any attempt to remove the same may result in paralysis.” Consequently, the husband is unable to sit comfortably even for a short duration, has become unemployed, and is incapable of earning any income.
Arguments
Counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Suryavanshi and Mr. Gaurav Singh, argued that the impugned order was “illegal, arbitrary, and has been passed without due application of mind.”
They contended that the opposite party is a doctor and possesses sufficient means to maintain his wife. The counsel emphasized that despite having sufficient means, the husband failed to maintain the revisionist, arguing that the Trial Court committed material irregularity in rejecting the claim.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Shukla examined the provisions of Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. and the essential ingredients required for the grant of maintenance. The Court acknowledged the principle laid down by Justice Krishna Iyer in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal & Ors. (1978), which describes Section 125 as a measure of social justice.
However, the Court observed that the present case stood on a different footing. While acknowledging that it is ordinarily the “pious duty of a husband to maintain his wife,” the Court noted that the husband’s earning capacity was “completely destroyed due to the criminal act committed by the brother and father of the revisionist.”
In a significant observation, Justice Shukla stated:
“It is well settled that though it is the pious obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, however, there is no such explicit legal duty has been cast upon the wife by any Court of law. In the facts of the present case, prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the wife and her family members has rendered the opposite party incapable of earning his livelihood.”
The Court further held:
“If a wife by her own acts or omissions, causes or contributes to the incapacity of her husband to earn, she cannot be permitted to take advantage of such a situation and claim maintenance. Granting maintenance in such circumstances would result in grave injustice to the husband, and the Court cannot shut its eyes from the reality emerging from the record.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015), the High Court noted that a husband’s liability to maintain is contingent upon his actual capacity to earn. The Court found that the material on record clearly established that the opposite party suffered a “grievous firearm injury” caused by the revisionist’s side, rendering him physically incapable of working.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court had not committed any manifest illegality or material irregularity. The Court stated that the Trial Court “neither failed to exercise its jurisdiction nor exceeded the same.”
Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vineeta vs. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 8658 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla
