Maintenance Claim Fails When Husband’s Inability to Earn Stems from Wife’s Family’s Criminal Conduct

Indian maintenance law has steadily developed as a protective framework designed to shield wives, children, and dependent parents from economic abandonment. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) embodies this social justice mandate. Judicial interpretation has consistently reinforced that a husband cannot shirk his statutory responsibility to maintain his wife by citing lack of employment, financial hardship, or incapacity of his own making.

Against this settled backdrop, the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Vineeta v. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh introduces a rare and carefully reasoned exception. The Court was required to address a profoundly atypical situation, one that tested the moral and legal boundaries of maintenance jurisprudence itself: whether a wife can demand maintenance when the husband’s inability to earn is the direct and irreversible consequence of criminal violence inflicted by her own family members.

Maintenance law cannot be used as an instrument of injustice where the claimant’s conduct or that of her family has destroyed the earning capacity of the person from whom maintenance is sought.

Factual Background of the Case

The revision arose from an order dated 7 May 2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushinagar at Padrauna, rejecting the wife’s application for interim maintenance. The applicant-wife had filed proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) claiming maintenance as a legally wedded wife.

The husband, Dr. Ved Prakash Singh, was a homoeopathic doctor running his own clinic. According to the record, on 13 April 2019, while he was engaged in his professional work, the real brother and father of the wife, along with other associates, arrived at his clinic, abused him, threatened his life, and opened fire upon him. The husband sustained a grievous firearm injury, with the pellet lodging in his spinal cord. Medical evidence revealed that removal of the pellet posed a serious risk of paralysis.

As a result of this injury, the husband became physically incapable of sitting or working for prolonged periods and was rendered unemployed and incapable of earning. These facts were recorded by the Family Court and were not successfully controverted before the High Court.

Welfare Orientation of Maintenance Law: Not Absolute

The Court reaffirmed the well-established principle laid down in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal (1978) that maintenance provisions are a measure of social justice rooted in Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution. However, the judgment emphasised that social justice does not operate in a moral vacuum.

Maintenance law is not punitive. It is compensatory and preventive. It cannot be stretched to the extent of rewarding conduct that directly destroys the respondent’s livelihood.

Destruction of Earning Capacity by Wife’s Family

What distinguishes this case from ordinary maintenance disputes is the causal link between the wife’s family’s criminal conduct and the husband’s incapacity to earn.

The High Court noted that:

• The husband was previously earning and capable of maintaining his wife.
• His earning capacity was completely destroyed due to a gunshot injury.
• The injury was caused by the wife’s father and brother.
• The incapacity was permanent or at least long-term and medically corroborated.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the husband no longer possessed “sufficient means” within the meaning of Section 125 CrPC.

The Principle Against Taking Advantage of One’s Own Wrong

A pivotal contribution of this judgment lies in its application of the equitable doctrine that no person can be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong.

The Court observed that if a wife, by her own conduct or that of her family members, causes or contributes to the incapacity of her husband to earn, she cannot be allowed to claim maintenance based on that very incapacity.

Granting maintenance in such circumstances would result in grave injustice and would convert a welfare statute into a tool for unjust enrichment.

This reasoning introduces an important moral dimension into maintenance adjudication, without diluting the statutory purpose.

Distinguishing Precedents on Husband’s Obligation to Earn

The wife relied on the settled principle that a husband cannot escape maintenance by pleading unemployment. Courts have often held that even an able-bodied man must undertake suitable work to maintain his wife.

The High Court carefully distinguished those precedents. It relied on Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015), where the Supreme Court held that the husband’s obligation continues so long as he is capable of earning. In the present case, the husband’s physical incapacity was real, involuntary, medically established, and externally inflicted.

Similarly, in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017), the Supreme Court held that maintenance must be proportionate to the paying spouse’s capacity. The Allahabad High Court applied this principle to hold that where capacity itself is destroyed, maintenance cannot be mechanically imposed.

Rejection of the “Professional Qualification” Argument

The wife argued that since the husband was a doctor, he must be presumed to have sufficient means. The Court firmly rejected this contention.

A professional qualification, by itself, does not constitute sufficient means. Earning capacity is a function of health, physical ability, and actual opportunity to work. A medical degree cannot override a spinal injury that prevents sustained professional activity.

This clarification is significant, particularly in an era where courts are increasingly cautious about attributing notional income without a factual basis.

Interim Maintenance and Judicial Restraint

The case concerned rejection of interim maintenance, not final adjudication. The High Court underscored that interim maintenance orders must still satisfy statutory requirements and cannot be granted as a matter of course.

The Family Court had considered medical records, factual circumstances, and causal responsibility before denying interim relief. The High Court found no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in this approach.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Vineeta v. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh represents a principled assertion that social justice must remain anchored to fairness. Maintenance law, though remedial and benevolent, cannot be stretched so far as to reward wrongdoing or ignore the destruction of a person’s livelihood caused by the claimant’s side.

By refusing to grant maintenance where the husband’s inability to earn was a direct consequence of the wife’s family’s criminal act, the Court preserved the ethical integrity of Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS). The judgment reinforces that welfare legislation is meant to protect the vulnerable, not to sanction inequity.

This ruling will likely serve as a persuasive precedent in cases involving extreme facts, reminding courts and litigants alike that justice is not blind to conduct, causation, and consequence.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams