No maintenance if wife contributes to man’s inability to earn: HC
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has stated that if a wife’s actions or omissions contribute to her husband’s inability to earn a living, she cannot claim maintenance from him. This judgment was passed while hearing a plea by a woman seeking maintenance from her doctor husband, who had been left unable to work due to an altercation with his brother-in-law and father-in-law.
The case in question involved a married couple, where the husband, a medical professional, had been shot at by his brother-in-law and father-in-law during a dispute. As a result of the shooting, the husband suffered serious injuries, which left him unable to work and earn a living. The wife, subsequently, filed a petition claiming maintenance from her husband, citing his inability to provide for her.
However, the High Court rejected the woman’s petition, stating that the wife’s actions or omissions had contributed to her husband’s inability to earn. The court observed that the wife’s family members had allegedly shot at the husband, leading to his incapacitation. Therefore, the court ruled that the wife could not claim maintenance from her husband, as her own actions had led to his inability to earn.
This judgment has significant implications for the concept of maintenance in Indian law. Maintenance is a legal obligation where one spouse is required to provide financial support to the other spouse, in the event of a separation or divorce. However, this ruling suggests that if a spouse’s actions or omissions contribute to the other spouse’s inability to earn, they may not be entitled to claim maintenance.
The court’s decision was based on the principle that a spouse who contributes to the other spouse’s inability to earn cannot claim maintenance from them. This principle is rooted in the concept of causality, where the spouse’s actions or omissions must have directly caused the other spouse’s inability to earn. In this case, the wife’s family members’ actions had led to the husband’s incapacitation, thereby breaking the causal link between the husband’s earnings and the wife’s maintenance.
The ruling also highlights the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding a spouse’s inability to earn. The court took into account the fact that the husband’s injuries were a direct result of the altercation with his brother-in-law and father-in-law, and that the wife’s actions or omissions had contributed to this situation. This suggests that the court will consider the specific circumstances of each case, rather than relying on a blanket rule.
The judgment has sparked debate among legal experts, with some arguing that it could be used to deny maintenance to spouses who are genuinely in need. Others have welcomed the ruling, stating that it will prevent spouses from taking advantage of the maintenance laws.
In recent years, there have been several cases where spouses have been denied maintenance due to their own actions or omissions. For instance, in a 2019 case, the Supreme Court ruled that a wife who had deserted her husband and was living with another man could not claim maintenance from her husband.
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling is significant, as it highlights the complexities surrounding maintenance laws in India. While the judgment may seem harsh, it is essential to consider the specific circumstances of each case and the principles of causality and contributory negligence.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court’s ruling that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband if her actions or omissions contribute to his inability to earn is a significant development in Indian law. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding a spouse’s inability to earn and the principle of causality. While the ruling may have implications for spouses who are genuinely in need, it is essential to consider the specific facts of each case and the principles of law that apply.
Source: https://repository.inshorts.com/articles/en/PTI/dbbe1fad-7e39-43f2-8728-ba0777cf95e5
About the Author
