The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with a Family Court order denying interim maintenance to a wife, holding that maintenance cannot be claimed when the husband’s ability to earn has been completely destroyed due to the conduct of the wife’s own family members. The ruling came in a criminal revision filed by Vineeta against her husband, Dr. Ved Prakash Singh.
Background of the Case
Vineeta had approached the Family Court at Kushinagar seeking interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), claiming that she was the legally wedded wife of Dr. Ved Prakash Singh, a homeopathy doctor running his own clinic.
The Family Court, however, rejected her application in May 2025. Challenging that order, Vineeta moved the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the decision was arbitrary and passed without proper application of mind. Her counsel stressed that the husband was a qualified doctor and therefore had “sufficient means” to maintain her.
What Led to the Dispute
During the hearing, the court examined the circumstances placed on record by the husband. According to the case file, an incident in April 2019 changed everything. While Dr. Singh was attending patients at his clinic, the wife’s brother and father, along with others, allegedly arrived there, abused him, and threatened his life.
Read also:- SC Says High Courts Cannot Dictate Investigations, Overturns Order in Savukku Shankar Case
The situation escalated when the wife’s brother allegedly opened fire, causing a grievous gunshot injury. A pellet lodged in Dr. Singh’s spinal cord remains there even today. Doctors have advised that removing it could result in paralysis. Since the incident, he has been unable to sit for long periods and claims he is no longer capable of running his clinic or earning a livelihood.
Court’s Observations
Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla noted that maintenance law is meant as social justice, particularly for women, but it is not automatic. The judge referred to settled principles under Section 125 CrPC, which require that the husband must have “sufficient means” and actual earning capacity.
Read also:- Suo Motu Case: NGT Issues Notice After Noida Software Engineer Drowns Due to Waterlogging
“The bench observed that ordinarily, a husband is expected to work and maintain his wife, even if he does not have regular employment,” the order records. “However, the present case stands on a completely different footing.”
The court took a serious view of the fact that the husband’s earning capacity was allegedly destroyed due to a criminal act committed by the wife’s own family. It remarked that a wife cannot be allowed to take advantage of a situation where her own conduct, or that of her relatives, has rendered the husband incapable of earning.
Read also:- Supreme Court Backs NCLAT in Gloster Trademark Dispute, Denies Title Claim to Resolution Applicant
In strong words, the court noted that granting maintenance in such circumstances would result in “grave injustice” to the husband.
Decision
After considering the medical condition of the husband, the factual findings of the Family Court, and the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court’s order.
Holding that the Family Court had acted within its jurisdiction and on sound reasoning, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision and upheld the rejection of interim maintenance.
Case Title:Vineeta v. Dr. Ved Prakash Singh
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 8658 of 2025
Date of Decision: 19 January 2026
Bench: Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla
