The Allahabad High Court has upheld an order rejecting a wife’s maintenance application where the husband’s earning capacity was destroyed due to the criminal acts committed by her brother and father. The High Court held that a wife cannot be permitted to claim maintenance when she causes or contributes to the incapacity of her husband to earn by her own acts or omissions.

The High Court was considering a criminal revision preferred by the wife challenging the validity of the impugned order of the Family Court, whereby the Trial Court rejected her application seeking interim maintenance.

The Single Bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla observed, “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. 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.”

Advocate Dinesh Kumar Singh represented the Revisionist.

Factual Background

The Trial Court recorded that, as per the objections filed by the husband (opposite party), he was a Homoeopathy doctor running his own clinic. However, on April 13, 2019, while he was engaged in his routine professional work, the real brother and father of the revisionist, along with four other persons, arrived at his clinic, hurled filthy abuses, and extended threats to his life. Upon resistance, the brother of the revisionist opened fire on the opposite party, causing firearm injury.

It was claimed that the pellet was still lodged in the bone of his spinal cord, and as per medical advice, any attempt to remove the same would result in paralysis. Due to the said injury, the husband was unable to sit comfortably, even for a short duration and, consequently, became unemployed.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the revisionist could not overcome the factual findings and, throughout the course of arguments, merely emphasised that the opposite party is a doctor and, therefore, possesses sufficient means.

The Bench held, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a pious duty of a husband to maintain his wife, and ordinarily, a husband having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain his wife cannot seek protection of law. 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.”

However, the Bench took note of the fact that 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. “Thus, it was the conduct of the revisionist's side which rendered the opposite party incapable of earning and left him without sufficient means”, it added.

The Bench found that the opposite party suffered a grievous firearm injury, with a pellet entangled in his spinal cord, and medical advice indicated that any surgical intervention carried a serious risk of paralysis. “Owing to such physical incapacity, the opposite party has been rendered incapable of earning his livelihood. It is apparent from the record that the said physical incapacity was caused by the revisionist's side”, it held.

Thus, dismissing the revision, the Bench held that the Trial Court had not committed any manifest illegality or material irregularity while passing the impugned order.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:13863)

Appearance

Revisionist: Advocates Dinesh Kumar Singh, Gaurav Suryavanshi

Click here to read/download Order



Allahabad High CourtJustice Lakshmi Kant Shukla

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.