Wife Cannot Claim Maintenance After Her Own Family Cripples Husband’s Earning Capacity: Allahabad High Court

“Law Does Not Compel a Physically Incapacitated Man to Earn – Especially When Injury is Caused by Wife’s Family”, In a ruling that significantly reframes the contours of maintenance law under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Allahabad High Court 6 refused interim maintenance to a woman whose husband had been rendered physically incapacitated in a violent firing incident involving her own brother and father. Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, speaking for the Court, firmly observed that “a wife who, by her own acts or by the acts of her family members, causes or contributes to the husband’s incapacity to earn cannot be permitted to take advantage of such a situation and claim maintenance.”

The judgment came in XXX VS XXX , where the wife sought to challenge the Family Court’s rejection of her application for interim maintenance. The Family Court had held, based on medical records and case facts, that the husband—once a practicing homoeopathic doctor—had become incapable of earning any income after sustaining a grievous spinal cord injury. That injury, the Trial Court found, was not merely accidental but stemmed from an attack allegedly carried out by the wifew’s own family members. This key fact, combined with the totality of circumstances, formed the legal foundation for rejection of the wife’s maintenance claim—an approach the High Court has now unequivocally affirmed.

“Sufficient Means” Under Section 125 CrPC Cannot Survive Total Physical Incapacity: High Court Lays Down Crucial Clarification

At the heart of the decision lies the interpretation of the phrase “sufficient means” under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Court observed that while Section 125 is a “measure of social justice”, as described by the Supreme Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, it cannot operate in a legal vacuum detached from real incapacity. Justice Shukla clarified, “Where the earning capacity of the husband is completely destroyed due to physical incapacity, the requirement of ‘sufficient means’ is not satisfied.”

The Court directly engaged with the wife’s contention that the opposite party was a qualified doctor and therefore presumed to possess sufficient means. Rejecting that argument, the Bench observed, “The opposite party has suffered a grievous firearm injury, with a pellet lodged in his spinal cord. Medical opinion advises against surgical removal, given the high risk of paralysis. In such a condition, he cannot even sit for short durations, let alone run a clinic.”

The Court thus reasoned that unlike ordinary cases where husbands try to evade maintenance by pleading unemployment, this case “stood on a different footing”. The distinction drawn was sharp and significant—“Law does not compel a physically incapacitated person to earn when medical evidence shows inability to do so,” said the Court, adding that “Maintenance under Section 125 requires proof of both need and the other party’s means, and not sympathy alone.”

When Conduct of Wife’s Family Causes the Injury, Maintenance Claim Cannot Be Rewarded: Court’s Strong Words on Equitable Relief

In perhaps the most critical passage of the judgment, the Court gave voice to the principle of equitable relief in matrimonial disputes. Justice Shukla held that “If a wife by her own acts or omissions, or by acts of her family members, 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.” Calling such a demand a misuse of the law, the Court said that granting maintenance in these circumstances “would result in grave injustice to the husband, and the Court cannot shut its eyes from the reality emerging from the record.”

The background facts were damning. According to the Trial Court’s findings—which the High Court accepted—the husband was attacked on 13 April 2019 inside his clinic by the wife’s brother and father. A firearm was used, and a pellet struck his spinal cord. The injury was so severe that any medical intervention risked permanent paralysis. This was not just a matter of loss of employment; it was total debilitation. The Court found that “the conduct of the wife’s family directly contributed to the collapse of the husband’s ability to earn,” and in such circumstances, no court of equity or law could grant her interim maintenance.

No Ground for Revisional Interference Where Trial Court Acted Within Law and Considered All Material

The revision petition, filed against the Family Court’s order dated 07 May 2025, was ultimately dismissed with clear judicial restraint. Justice Shukla held that there was “no manifest illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the Trial Court’s reasoning”, and that the Family Court had “neither failed to exercise its jurisdiction nor exceeded it.” Revisional powers, the Court reminded, cannot be used to re-appreciate facts already well-analyzed by the lower court.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, the Court reiterated that maintenance must reflect both “status of parties” and “capacity to pay”, and must not become a tool of retribution or blind entitlement.

The Court was also careful to restate the basic principle that a husband ordinarily has a legal and moral duty to support his wife. However, in the present case, that duty could not be invoked to compel a man who is physically broken—by no fault of his own but allegedly by the direct act of the wife’s family—to continue bearing that burden.

“Maintenance Law is Not a Weapon to Be Wielded Without Accountability”

This judgment adds a crucial dimension to Indian maintenance jurisprudence by injecting accountability into claims of maintenance, especially in cases involving violence, injury, and permanent incapacity. By holding that a wife cannot claim interim maintenance where her own family has allegedly destroyed the husband's earning ability, the High Court has laid down a precedent that reflects both legal reasoning and judicial conscience.

Justice Shukla’s words ring with moral clarity: “Maintenance cannot be granted in a mechanical or sympathetic manner. The Court must examine the realities that emerge from the record. To compel an incapacitated man to pay merely because he was once capable is to turn justice into punishment.”

This decision not only clarifies the limits of Section 125 Cr.P.C. but also fortifies the equitable dimension of maintenance law—a wife’s entitlement to support must be weighed against the husband’s actual ability to provide it, especially where that ability has been taken from him by the applicant’s own family.

Date of Decision: 19 January 2026