The Allahabad High Court has upheld a family court’s decision to deny interim maintenance to a woman whose family members allegedly shot her husband, leaving him permanently incapacitated and unable to earn a livelihood.
In a ruling delivered on January 19, 2026, Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the wife, Vineeta, challenging the May 7, 2025, order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushinagar at Padrauna. The lower court had rejected her application for interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Vineeta claimed she was the legally wedded wife of Dr. Ved Prakash Singh, a qualified homoeopathy doctor who runs his own clinic. She claimed that despite having sufficient means of income, he neglected to maintain her. She asserted that she was unable to maintain herself, entitling her to financial support from her husband.
Dr. Singh opposed the plea, citing his severe physical disability resulting from a violent attack by the wife’s family. According to the court’s records, on April 13, 2019, while attending to patients at his clinic, Vineeta’s father, brother, and four other individuals stormed in and assaulted him.
They allegedly abused him, threatened his life, and when he confronted them, his wife’s brother opened fire on him. This caused a grievous injury to him. A pellet remains lodged in his spinal cord, and medical advice warned that removal of it could lead to paralysis. As a result, he cannot sit comfortably for even short periods. He had to close the clinic, rendering him permanently unemployed and incapable of earning any income.
However, the wife claimed that as a qualified doctor, her husband possessed “sufficient means”, regardless of his employment status. She contended in her plea that her husband’s profession implied ongoing earning potential. Her counsel said that trial court had failed to properly assess the husband’s overall capacity, and rejecting the plea only based on his physical condition was wrong.
However, the High Court rejected her arguments and upheld the family court order. The court found no illegality or material irregularity in the family court’s order and declined to interfere.
Justice Shukla observed that while a husband has a pious duty to maintain his wife, the obligation under Section 125 CrPC is not absolute, it depends on the husband having sufficient means and actual earning capacity. In typical cases, a husband is expected to undertake suitable work even if unemployed, but this situation was exceptional due to the complete destruction of earning capacity from a severe injury.
Critically, the court noted that the incapacity was prima facie caused by the criminal acts of the wife’s own family members, her father and brother.
The judge emphasized, “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 referenced prior Supreme Court precedents, including cases stressing that maintenance is a measure of social justice but must align with the paying spouse’s actual capacity.
