In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court denied a wife maintenance from her homoeopathic doctor husband, shot and disabled by her own father and brother. The decision underscores that a spouse cannot profit from violence inflicted by her family, rejecting claims amid undeniable evidence of the husband's permanent incapacity.
Violent clinic assault leaves doctor paralysed
The ordeal began with a heated altercation at Dr Ved Prakash Singh's clinic in Kushinagar. His wife’s father and brother allegedly opened fire, shooting him and lodging a pellet deep in his spinal cord.
This brutal attack shattered Singh's life as a practicing homoeopathic doctor. Surgery to extract the pellet risks full paralysis, leaving him unable to sit comfortably, work, or earn. His medical practice, and ability to support his family, vanished overnight due to the assault.
Wife's failed bid for maintenance
Undeterred, the wife filed for interim maintenance in family court. On May 7, 2025, the Kushinagar family court rejected her plea outright, citing the husband's undisputed incapacity caused directly by her relatives.
She escalated to the Allahabad High Court via revision petition, but Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla dismissed it firmly. The court upheld the lower ruling, emphasizing unique circumstances that flipped traditional expectations.
High Court's razor-sharp legal reasoning
Justice Shukla laid out clear principles: While husbands bear a "pious obligation" to maintain wives under Indian norms, no reciprocal legal duty binds wives. Here, the wife's family’s criminal acts destroyed the husband's livelihood.
"It prima facie appears that the conduct of the wife and her family members has rendered [him] incapable of earning," the judgment stated. Granting maintenance would let her "take advantage" of the violence, causing "grave injustice."
The court refused to ignore the record's harsh reality- a pellet-riddled spine, no employment prospects, all traceable to her side. "The court cannot shut its eyes," it declared.
Broader implications for marital obligations
This ruling challenges blanket maintenance assumptions, carving exceptions for cases of spousal or familial sabotage. It signals courts will scrutinise conduct, ensuring justice doesn't reward aggression. Singh's story highlights vulnerabilities in personal disputes turning deadly, with legal recourse now shielding the victimised breadwinner.
