Allahabad HC Upholds Order Rejecting Wife’s Maintenance Claim After Husband Was Shot By Her Relatives

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to interfere with a family court order denying interim maintenance to a woman under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that her husband had been rendered incapable of earning due to a grievous gunshot injury allegedly caused by members of her own family.

"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 bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla said. 

The criminal revision was filed by one Vineeta challenging an order dated May 7, 2025 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushinagar at Padrauna, which had rejected her plea for interim maintenance in a pending maintenance case. Vineeta had approached the family court claiming that she was the legally wedded wife of Dr. Ved Prakash Singh and was unable to maintain herself, and therefore entitled to interim financial support.

Before the family court, the husband opposed the application by placing reliance on his medical condition and financial incapacity. He stated that he was earlier practising as a homeopathy doctor and was running his own clinic. However, according to him, on April 13, 2019, while he was attending to his professional work, the revisionist’s brother and father, along with four other persons, arrived at his clinic, abused him, threatened him with death and opened fire at him.

The husband claimed that he suffered a firearm injury and that a pellet remains lodged in the bone of his spinal cord. Medical advice, as noted in the order, indicated that any attempt to remove the pellet could lead to paralysis. Due to this injury, he asserted that he is unable to sit comfortably even for a short period and has become unemployed and incapable of earning any income. Accepting these submissions, the family court concluded that he did not have sufficient means to pay interim maintenance and rejected the wife’s application.

Assailing this order, Vineeta argued before the high court that the family court had acted illegally and without proper application of mind. It was contended that the husband is a qualified doctor and therefore must be presumed to have sufficient means. She further argued that despite having such means, the husband had neglected to maintain her, warranting interference with the family court’s order.

The high court, however, found no merit in these submissions. Court noted that although it is ordinarily a pious duty of a husband to maintain his wife, the obligation under Section 125 CrPC is contingent upon the husband having sufficient means and actual earning capacity.

Court observed that in Indian society, a husband is generally expected to undertake suitable work to maintain his family, even in the absence of regular employment, but the present case stood on a different footing.

Court underlined that the material on record clearly established that the husband had suffered a grievous firearm injury and that his earning capacity had been completely destroyed as a result.

Importantly, court noted that this physical incapacity was prima facie caused by the criminal acts of the revisionist’s own family members. In such circumstances, court held that the wife could not be permitted to take advantage of a situation where her own side’s conduct had contributed to rendering the husband incapable of earning.

Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the high court reiterated that the grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC depends on the factual circumstances of each case and, crucially, on the actual capacity of the spouse to earn.

Court referred to decisions such as Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, which describes maintenance as a measure of social justice, Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, which holds that no fixed formula can be applied while assessing maintenance, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, which emphasises that maintenance must correspond to the paying spouse’s capacity, and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, where the husband’s obligation was held to be contingent on his ability to earn.

Applying these principles, the high court held that the husband’s earning capacity stood completely destroyed due to a grievous firearm injury and that the family court had committed no illegality or material irregularity. The criminal revision was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Vineeta vs Dr Ved Prakash Singh

Judgment Date: January 19, 2026

Bench: Lakshmi Kant Shukla