Wife can't seek maintenance if her actions rendered husband incapable of earning: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband if her own actions have caused or contributed to her husband’s inability to earn.

A Bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla made the observation while upholding a trial court's decision to reject a woman's plea for interim payments from her husband, until a maintenance petition she had filed is decided.

The Court found that this was a case where the woman's husband had become incapable of earning due to a serious gunshot injury allegedly caused by the wife’s family members.

"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," the Court held.

The Court added that granting maintenance in such circumstances would result in grave injustice to the husband and that it could not ignore the realities emerging from the material on record.

“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 ... 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,” the Court observed.

The Court was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by the wife challenging a trial court's refusal to grant interim maintenance to the wife under Section 125 (maintenance) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The woman's husband was a homeopathic doctor who had been running his own clinic before he was allegedly attacked in April 2019 by his wife’s brother and father, along with others.

During the incident, the wife’s brother allegedly opened fire on him, causing a gunshot injury that left a pellet lodged in the husband’s spinal cord.

The trial court noted that medical advice indicated that removing the pellet could result in paralysis. It further recorded that due to the injury, the husband was unable to sit for long periods and had become unemployed and incapable of earning any income.

In view of these circumstances, the trial court declined to grant interim maintenance to the wife.

Challenging this, the wife approached the Allahabad High Court.

Before the High Court, the wife's counsel argued that the husband was a doctor and continued to have sufficient means, but was deliberately failing to maintain her.

The Court acknowledged that it is ordinarily the duty of a husband to maintain his wife.

“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,” the Court added.

However, the Court said that the present case stood on a different footing, as the husband’s earning capacity had been completely destroyed due to the criminal act committed by the wife’s family.

“The material on record clearly establishes that the opposite party (husband) has suffered a grievous firearm injury, with a pellet entangled in his spinal cord, and medical advice indicates that any surgical intervention carries 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 (wife) side,” the Court said.

With these observations, the High Court held that the trial court had rightly refused to order the payment of interim maintenance to the wife and dismissed her revision plea.

Advocates Dinesh Kumar Singh and Gaurav Suryavanshi appeared for the revisionist-wife.

[Read Order]