No maintenance if wife contributes to man’s inability to earn: HC
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has stated that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband if her actions or omissions contribute to his inability to earn. This judgment was passed while hearing a plea by a woman seeking maintenance from her doctor husband. The court rejected the petition, citing that the husband’s inability to earn was a result of the wife’s family members’ actions, which left him unable to work or provide maintenance.
The case in question involved a doctor who was allegedly shot at by his brother-in-law and father-in-law during an altercation. As a result of the incident, the doctor was left unable to earn a living or provide maintenance to his wife. The wife, however, claimed that she was entitled to maintenance from her husband, despite his current inability to earn.
The High Court, while hearing the plea, observed that the wife’s actions or omissions had contributed to her husband’s inability to earn. The court noted that the altercation that led to the husband’s injury was a result of the wife’s family members’ actions, and therefore, she could not claim maintenance from her husband.
This ruling is significant, as it highlights the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding a husband’s inability to earn when determining maintenance claims. The court’s decision emphasizes that a wife’s actions or omissions can have a direct impact on her husband’s ability to earn, and therefore, she cannot claim maintenance if she has contributed to his inability to do so.
The concept of maintenance is an important aspect of family law, as it ensures that a spouse is provided for financially, particularly in cases where they are unable to earn a living themselves. However, the Allahabad High Court’s ruling suggests that the courts will take a more nuanced approach to determining maintenance claims, considering the specific circumstances of each case.
In this particular case, the court’s decision was influenced by the fact that the husband’s injury was a result of an altercation with his wife’s family members. The court observed that the wife’s family members’ actions had left the husband unable to earn, and therefore, the wife could not claim maintenance from him.
This ruling has significant implications for maintenance claims in the future. It suggests that courts will consider the role of both spouses in contributing to the husband’s inability to earn, and will not automatically award maintenance to the wife. Instead, the courts will carefully examine the circumstances surrounding the husband’s inability to earn, and will only award maintenance if it is deemed fair and reasonable to do so.
The Allahabad High Court’s decision is also consistent with the principles of natural justice, which dictate that a person should not be penalized for circumstances that are beyond their control. In this case, the husband’s inability to earn was a result of the wife’s family members’ actions, and therefore, it is only fair that the wife should not be entitled to claim maintenance from him.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court’s ruling is an important development in the area of family law, particularly with regards to maintenance claims. The court’s decision highlights the importance of considering the specific circumstances surrounding a husband’s inability to earn, and emphasizes that a wife’s actions or omissions can have a direct impact on her husband’s ability to earn. As such, this ruling is likely to have significant implications for maintenance claims in the future, and will likely be cited as a precedent in similar cases.
News Source: https://repository.inshorts.com/articles/en/PTI/dbbe1fad-7e39-43f2-8728-ba0777cf95e5
About the Author
