Maintenance Denied: Allahabad HC on Incapacity to Earn Caused by Wife’s Family

Can a Wife Claim Maintenance If Her Own Family Destroyed the Husband’s Earning Capacity?

Allahabad High Court’s Hard-Hitting Ruling on Alimony & Incapacity to Earn (Jan 2026)

Case Name: Vineeta v. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh (Allahabad High Court, January 2026 Judgement)

What happens when a man loses his ability to earn not because of laziness or neglect but due to a bullet fired by his wife’s own family? Can the law still compel him to pay maintenance?

the Allahabad High Court delivered a powerful judgment that forces us to rethink the boundaries of alimony, fairness, and justice under Indian law.

Background of the Case

The husband in this case was a qualified homeopathic doctor, running his own medical clinic and earning through his professional practice. There was no dispute that, at one stage, he was fully capable of maintaining his wife.

However, the turning point came on 13 April 2019.

While the husband was attending to patients at his clinic, the wife’s real brother and father, along with other individuals, stormed into the premises and started abusing him. When the husband resisted this unlawful interference in his professional work, the situation escalated violently.

The wife’s brother opened fire. The bullet caused a severe firearm injury, and a pellet became lodged in the bone of the husband’s spinal cord

Medical Consequences

Medical evidence placed before the court revealed that:

• The pellet is embedded dangerously close to the spinal cord
• Surgical removal carries a high risk of permanent paralysis
• The husband is unable to sit comfortably even for short periods
• His physical condition has rendered him unemployed and incapable of earning.

In simple terms, his earning capacity was completely destroyed.

Legal Issue Before the Court

The central question before the Allahabad High Court was:

1. Can a wife claim maintenance when the husband’s incapacity to earn is the direct result of criminal acts committed by her own family members?

Allahabad High Court’s Observation

A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla made a crucial and principled observation:

If a wife, by her own acts or omissions, causes or contributes to the incapacity of the husband to earn, she cannot be permitted to take advantage of such a situation and claim maintenance.

The Court further emphasized that granting maintenance in such circumstances would amount to “grave injustice.”

Court’s Reasoning (Key Takeaways)

• Maintenance laws are meant to prevent destitution, not to reward unfair advantage
• At an earlier stage, the husband had sufficient means and earning capacity
• His inability to earn was not voluntary, but caused by criminal violence
• The violence was committed by the wife’s own brother and father
• Forcing maintenance in such a scenario would violate the basic principles of equity and justice

The Court remarked:

“At an earlier stage, the opposite party was capable of maintaining his wife and had sufficient means, but his earning capacity was completely destroyed due to the criminal act committed by the brother and father of the revisionist.”

Legal Provision Involved

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, holding that misuse of maintenance provisions must be prevented where justice clearly demands intervention. 

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling is significant because:

• It clarifies that maintenance is not an absolute right
• It introduces the concept of contributory conduct in maintenance claims
• It protects incapacitated husbands from double victimization first by violence, then by legal compulsion
• It reinforces that family law must operate with fairness, not blind sympathy.