The Allahabad High Court held that a wife cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if her own family members have rendered the husband incapable of earning through criminal acts. The Court upheld the Family Court’s rejection of interim maintenance in such circumstances.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: In a landmark ruling by the Allahabad High Court, it has been held that a wife cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if her own family members have rendered her husband incapable of earning due to their own criminal acts. This ruling emphasizes that maintenance is not an absolute right but depends on the husband’s actual capacity to earn and the reasonableness of the wife’s claim.
The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by Vineeta, who claimed to be the legally wedded wife of Dr. Ved Prakash Singh, a homeopathic doctor. She sought interim maintenance from him under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
However, the Family Court rejected her application because the husband had become physically disabled and unable to earn after Vineeta’s brother and father shot him.
The High Court, led by Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, upheld this decision.
The court recognized that Section 125 is a measure of social justice, designed to protect women and children. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that maintenance laws should be interpreted with empathy toward the weaker sections of society.
The Court reiterated the principle that a husband must maintain his wife only if he has the capacity to earn.
In this case, the husband was unable to earn because:
- He was shot by his wife’s brother,
- The pellet is lodged in his spinal cord,
- Surgery may cause paralysis,
- He cannot sit or work for long hours.
Thus, his earning capacity was destroyed due to the wife’s family’s criminal act.
The court highlighted the essential conditions that the husband must have sufficient means, the wife must be unable to maintain herself, the wife must live separately, and the separate residence must be justified.
The court observed:
“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.”
This is a landmark interpretation, as it clarifies that maintenance cannot be claimed when the husband’s incapacity is due to the wife’s family’s criminal conduct.
The Allahabad High Court relied on the following landmark Supreme Court decisions:
In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal (1978), the Supreme Court held that maintenance laws are meant as a measure of social justice, specifically to protect women and children. The Court emphasized that Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted with constitutional empathy toward the weaker sections of society to give it real social relevance.
In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015), the Supreme Court held that a husband’s liability to pay maintenance is contingent upon his actual capacity to earn, meaning that if he is unable to earn, he cannot be compelled to pay maintenance.
In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge (1997), the Supreme Court held that no fixed formula can be laid down for fixing the amount of maintenance; it must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, taking into account the status of the parties, their respective needs, and the capacity of the husband to pay, so that the amount is reasonable and not excessive.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision petition and held:
- The Family Court did not commit any illegality
- The husband was not capable of earning
- The wife’s claim was not maintainable due to the criminal conduct of her family
Case Title:
Vineeta vs. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh
Criminal Revision No. 8658 of 2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance