The Allahabad High Court has clarified in a maintenance related matter that if, due to criminal and violent acts of the wife or her relatives, the husband’s employment is adversely affected and his capacity to earn a livelihood is completely destroyed, then the wife cannot claim interim maintenance in such circumstances.
The said order was passed by a Single Bench of Justice Laxmi Kant Shukla, upholding the order of the Family Court, Kushinagar, by which the wife’s application for interim maintenance was rejected.
According to the facts of the case, Vineeta (revisionist) , claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of Dr. Ved Prakash Singh, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Padrauna, Kushinagar, seeking maintenance.
The Trial Court, by order dated 7 May 2025, rejected the application of the wife on the ground that the husband was unable to earn his livelihood due to serious injuries and, therefore, the claim for maintenance was not maintainable.
The High Court ruled that,
“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 present case stands 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.”
Dr. Ved Prakash Singh was a homeopathic doctor and was running his own clinic. On 13 April 2019, the wife’s father and brother, along with their associates, reached the clinic, abused and threatened him, and thereafter Vineeta’s brother fired a gunshot at the doctor. The bullet pellet got lodged in his spinal cord, and as per medical advice, its removal posed a risk of paralysis. As a result, the doctor is unable to sit properly or carry out any work.
In conclusion, the Court observed that,
“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.”
The Court further held that,
“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.”
Relying upon several judgments of the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that determination of maintenance depends upon the facts of each case and that the husband’s actual income and capacity cannot be ignored.
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the wife.
Case: Vineeta vs Dr Ved Prakash Singh
Date of Order: 19.01.2026
See Order: Vineeta vs Dr Ved Prakash Singh
