Court rules that maintenance cannot be granted when husband's incapacitation is a result of wife's family's actions, upholding the trial court's decision.
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Vineeta, seeking maintenance from her husband, Dr. Ved Prakash Singh. The court upheld the decision of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushinagar, which denied interim maintenance on the grounds that the husband was rendered incapable of earning due to a grievous injury allegedly inflicted by the wife's family.
The case, adjudicated by Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla, revolved around an incident where Dr. Ved Prakash Singh, a homeopathy doctor, was severely injured after an alleged attack by Vineeta's brother and father. The assault left him with a pellet lodged in his spinal cord, severely impairing his ability to work and earn a livelihood. The trial court had previously determined that due to this incapacitation, the husband could not be held liable to pay maintenance.
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, typically obligates a husband to maintain his wife if he has sufficient means and she is unable to maintain herself. However, the High Court highlighted that the husband's obligation is contingent upon his capacity to earn. In this case, the court found that the husband's incapacitation, directly resulting from the wife's family's actions, absolved him of this obligation.
Justice Shukla emphasized that while it is generally a husband's duty to support his wife, no legal duty mandates a wife to maintain her husband. The court noted that allowing the wife to claim maintenance in such circumstances would result in "grave injustice" to the husband. The judgment referenced multiple precedents, including Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, reinforcing the principle that maintenance claims must consider the husband's actual earning capacity.
The court concluded that the trial court's decision did not exhibit any manifest illegality or material irregularity. Consequently, the revision was deemed without merit and dismissed. This ruling underscores the judiciary's nuanced approach in evaluating maintenance claims, ensuring that justice is equitable and takes into account the factual circumstances of each case.
Bottom Line:
A husband who has been rendered incapable of earning due to the conduct of the wife or her family cannot be compelled to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Vineeta v. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2842773
