'Unique circumstances': Allahabad High Court's big verdict — wife can't claim maintenance if…

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife is ineligible for maintenance if her own actions or those of her relatives directly cause her husband’s inability to generate income. This decision sets a legal precedent regarding the intersection of domestic conduct and financial obligations.

The court reached this conclusion while dismissing a revision petition filed by a woman seeking financial support from her husband, a practitioner of homeopathy.

The husband’s earning potential was severely compromised after he was allegedly shot by his father-in-law and brother-in-law during a violent confrontation at his private clinic.

Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, presiding over the case, affirmed a prior ruling by a Kushinagar family court. He remarked that awarding maintenance under these specific circumstances would constitute a significant miscarriage of justice. This is especially true when a man’s professional livelihood has been dismantled by the criminal conduct of the claimant’s immediate family members.

"While Indian society generally expects a husband to work and maintain his family, this case presented unique circumstances," the court of Justice Shukla observed.

"It is well settled that though it is the pious obligation of a husband to maintain his wife, no such explicit legal duty has been cast upon the wife by any court of law."

Evidence presented showed that Ved Prakash Singh sustained life-altering injuries during the assault, leaving him physically incapacitated. The High Court highlighted that a pellet remains embedded in his spinal cord. A surgical removal poses a severe risk of permanent paralysis.

Consequently, he is unable to sit for extended periods or maintain steady work.

"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," it added.

On May 7, 2025, the lower court denied the wife’s request for interim support. In its final assessment, the High Court emphasized that the husband’s disability was an undisputed fact resulting from the actions of the wife's kin, thereby disqualifying her from claiming support.

Setting aside a family court order rejecting a woman's application seeking maintenance from her husband, Justice Garima Prashad observed that it is "misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualifications of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her."

The court said a wife's mere potential to earn is distinct from actual gainful employment.