The Court noted that in the case before it, the husband’s earning capacity had been completely destroyed due to a criminal act committed by the wife’s family.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has established a significant legal precedent, ruling that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband if her own conduct, or the actions of her family, have caused or contributed to the husband’s inability to earn a living.
The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla while upholding a trial court’s decision to reject a woman’s plea for interim maintenance. The woman had challenged the lower court’s refusal to grant her payments while her main maintenance petition was still pending.
Background of the Case
The case involved a husband who was a practicing homeopathic doctor. His career and physical health were shattered in April 2019 when he was allegedly attacked by his wife’s brother and father. During the incident, the wife’s brother reportedly opened fire, resulting in a gunshot injury that left a pellet lodged in the doctor’s spinal cord.
Medical records presented to the court indicated that any attempt to surgically remove the pellet carried a high risk of total paralysis. As a result, the husband is unable to sit for long durations, rendering him unemployed and physically incapable of earning an income.
The Court’s Ruling
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla noted that while it is generally the duty of a husband to provide for his wife, this specific case presented exceptional circumstances.
The Court held:
“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 further added that:
“In the facts of the present case, prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the wife and her family members has rendered the opposite party incapable of earning his livelihood … 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.”
Legal Arguments
During the proceedings, the counsel for the wife argued that because the husband was a qualified doctor, he possessed sufficient means to support her but was deliberately failing to do so.
Acknowledging the traditional expectations of a spouse, the Court stated:
“In Indian society, it is well recognized that a husband, even in the absence of regular employment, is expected to undertake suitable work according to his capacity to maintain himself and his family.”
However, the Court clarified that this principle does not apply when the husband’s capacity has been destroyed by the claimant’s side. The Court observed:
“The material on record clearly establishes that the opposite party (husband) has suffered a grievous firearm injury, with a pellet entangled in his spinal cord, and medical advice indicates that any surgical intervention carries a serious risk of paralysis. Owing to such physical incapacity, the opposite party has been rendered incapable of earning his livelihood. It is apparent from the record that the said physical incapacity was caused by the revisionist’s (wife) side.”
Conclusion
Finding no illegality in the trial court’s original order, the High Court dismissed the wife’s revision plea.
Advocates Dinesh Kumar Singh and Gaurav Suryavanshi appeared for the revisionist-wife.