In a significant and rare ruling that touches upon the principles of "equity" and "justice" in matrimonial laws, the Allahabad High Court has held that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband if her own family members are responsible for making him physically incapable of earning a living.

The Court observed that while it is generally the "pious duty" of a husband to maintain his wife, the law cannot shut its eyes when the wife's side has destroyed the husband’s earning capacity through a criminal act.

The matter arose from a criminal revision petition filed by a woman named Vineeta, who challenged an order passed by the Family Court in Kushinagar. The Family Court had earlier rejected her application for interim maintenance against her husband, Dr. Ved Prakash Singh.

Dr. Ved Prakash Singh was a practicing Homeopathy doctor running his own clinic. However, his life took a tragic turn on April 13, 2019. According to the records, the wife’s brother and father, along with four others, allegedly arrived at his clinic, abused him, and issued life threats.

When the doctor resisted, the wife’s brother reportedly opened fire. The doctor survived, but a pellet became lodged in his spinal cord. Medical experts advised against surgery, warning that removing the pellet could result in permanent paralysis. This injury left Dr. Singh unable to sit comfortably for even short durations, effectively ending his professional career and leaving him unemployed and without a source of income.

Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)—which governs maintenance in India—one of the primary conditions for granting maintenance is that the husband must have "sufficient means" to pay.

The wife's legal counsel argued that since the husband is a qualified doctor, he automatically possesses "sufficient means." They contended that the Family Court’s refusal to grant maintenance was illegal and arbitrary, as the law mandates a husband to support his wife even if he doesn't have a stable job, provided he is able-bodied.

However, Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla of the Allahabad High Court looked deeper into the facts. The Court noted that the husband’s lack of "means" was not a choice or a result of laziness, but a direct consequence of a violent attack perpetrated by the wife’s own family.

The High Court's judgment centered on the concept that no one should be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. Here are the key highlights of the Court’s reasoning:

1. The "Clean Hands" Doctrine

The Court remarked that if a wife, through her own acts or the acts of her family, contributes to her husband’s inability to earn, she cannot later use that same incapacity to claim financial support. "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," the Court noted.

2. Ability to Earn is Contingent

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, the High Court clarified that while a husband cannot plead financial "constraints" to avoid maintenance, his liability is ultimately contingent upon his actual capacity to earn. In this case, that capacity was physically destroyed.

3. Maintenance is Not a "Set Formula"

The Court emphasized that maintenance laws are measures of social justice meant to protect the vulnerable. However, it added that the amount and the right to maintenance must depend on the specific facts of each case. In this scenario, granting maintenance would result in "grave injustice" to a man who was already suffering from a life-altering injury caused by the claimant's family.

The High Court found that the Trial Court (Family Court) had acted correctly. It ruled that Dr. Singh was genuinely incapable of earning his livelihood due to the firearm injury.

The Court held:

"At an earlier stage, the opposite party (husband) was capable of maintaining his wife... but his earning capacity was completely destroyed due to the criminal act committed by the brother and father of the revisionist (wife)."

Finding no "material irregularity" or illegality in the lower court's decision, the High Court dismissed the wife's revision petition.

This ruling is a reminder that while Section 125 CrPC is a gender-sensitive law designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution among women, it is not an absolute right that applies regardless of conduct.

The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must look at the "reality emerging from the record." In matrimonial disputes where allegations of criminal violence are involved, the physical and financial health of the husband—especially if compromised by the other party—becomes a crucial factor in determining the outcome of maintenance claims.

Case Details: * Case Name: Vineeta v. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh

Case No: Criminal Revision No. 8658 of 2025
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Bench: Hon’ble Lakshmi Kant Shukla, J.
Date of Order: January 19, 2026