Wife Denied Maintenance After Family’s Attack Left Husband Disabled

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife is not entitled to maintenance from her husband if her conduct or that of her family members directly contributes to his permanent inability to earn. In a significant judgment, Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed a revision petition filed by a woman seeking interim maintenance from her estranged husband, a homoeopathic doctor who suffered life-altering injuries after being shot by her brother and father-in-law.

The incident occurred during a heated altercation at the husband’s clinic in Kushinagar, where the wife’s relatives allegedly fired at him. A pellet lodged in his spinal cord has caused severe physical disability, making it impossible for him to sit comfortably or pursue any employment. Medical experts have warned that surgery to remove the pellet carries a substantial risk of paralysis, leaving his condition effectively permanent. The family court had earlier rejected the wife’s maintenance application on May 7, 2025, a decision the high court upheld after reviewing the evidence.

The court emphasized that while Indian law and society traditionally place the duty of maintenance on the husband, exceptional circumstances must be considered. Justice Shukla observed that allowing maintenance in this case would amount to grave injustice, as the husband’s earning capacity was destroyed through criminal acts linked to the wife’s side of the family. The judgment highlighted that a wife cannot benefit from a situation she or her relatives helped create, stating clearly that if a wife’s actions or omissions lead to her husband’s incapacity, she forfeits the right to claim support.

Also Read: Wife Entitled to 25% of Husband's Income as Maintenance: Allahabad High Court

This ruling underscores the principle that maintenance provisions under law are not absolute and must be evaluated against the specific facts of each case. The court noted the undisputed medical evidence of the husband’s disability and its direct causation, reinforcing that courts cannot ignore such realities when deciding maintenance claims. The decision has sparked discussions on gender neutrality in matrimonial disputes and the limits of spousal obligations.

The case serves as a precedent in similar situations where one spouse’s family actions severely impact the other’s financial capacity, potentially influencing future family court rulings across the country.

Also Read: Justice Varma Challenges Lok Sabha Speaker’s Inquiry Panel in Supreme Court