Can a wife accused of attempting to kill her husband still claim maintenance? Punjab & Haryana High Court has now stayed such an order. The case has raised serious questions on misuse of legal remedies while a criminal trial is already going on.
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed an earlier order that directed a husband to pay interim maintenance to his wife, who is facing trial in an attempt to murder case involving the same husband.
The wife is presently facing criminal proceedings before a court in Jalandhar.
On April 22, Justice Kirti Singh issued notice on a petition filed by the husband challenging the order of a Ludhiana family court passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 25.8.2025 shall remain stayed,” the High Court ordered.
Earlier, on August 25, 2025, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana had directed the husband to pay ₹5,000 per month to the wife as interim maintenance.
The husband then approached the High Court against that direction. His lawyer argued that there had been matrimonial disputes between the parties since the marriage in 2019.
The Court was informed that on the night between May 13 and 14, when the husband was lying on his bed and about to sleep, the wife allegedly poured inflammable liquid on him. Due to this, he suffered 45 percent burn injuries. He remained under medical treatment for more than four months.
The High Court was also told that a criminal case was registered against the wife over the incident. It was submitted that she was denied anticipatory bail by various courts, including the Supreme Court, and remained absconding for more than one year.
“After the initiation of trial for attempt to murder, the respondent-wife, in order to delay the trial, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance,” the husband’s counsel said.
After considering the facts placed before it, the High Court stayed the family court’s maintenance order and fixed the matter for further hearing on May 25.
Explanatory Table Of The Laws Mentioned In The Case
| LAW / SECTION MENTIONED | MEANING | ROLE IN THIS CASE |
| Section 125 CrPC | Provision for maintenance to wife, children, and parents who cannot maintain themselves | Wife filed maintenance case seeking monthly support |
| Interim Maintenance | Temporary monthly amount during pendency of proceedings | Family Court granted ₹5,000 per month |
| Attempt to Murder | Serious criminal offence for alleged attempt to kill a person | Husband claimed wife tried to burn him |
| Anticipatory Bail | Pre-arrest bail sought before arrest | Wife allegedly denied such relief |
| Stay Order | Temporary suspension of lower court order | High Court stopped maintenance order for now |
| Criminal Trial | Full court process to decide guilt or innocence | Ongoing before Jalandhar court |
Case Details
| PARTICULARS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Husband vs Wife |
| Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Kirti Singh |
| Date of Order | 22 April 2026 |
| Impugned Order Stayed | Order dated 25.08.2025 of Family Court, Ludhiana |
| Lower Court | Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana |
| Nature of Case | Petition challenging interim maintenance granted to wife |
| Main Issue | Whether interim maintenance should continue when wife is facing trial for attempt to murder husband |
| Husband’s Allegation | Wife allegedly poured inflammable liquid on husband while he was sleeping |
| Injury Claimed | 45% burn injuries |
| Medical Treatment | More than four months |
| Criminal Trial Status | Wife facing criminal trial before Jalandhar court |
| Bail Status | Anticipatory bail allegedly denied up to Supreme Court |
| High Court Relief | Maintenance order stayed |
| Next Date Mentioned | 25 May |
| Counsels for Husband | Senior Advocate RS Bains, Advocate Loveneet Thakur, Advocate Vivek Vikas Singh |
Key Takeaways
- A husband with serious burn injuries was still ordered to financially support the accused wife.
- High Court intervention shows lower court orders can ignore harsh ground realities faced by men.
- Maintenance laws meant for protection cannot become weapons against injured husbands.
- Men facing violence often get less sympathy, less urgency, and slower justice.
- This case is a reminder that gender-neutral scrutiny is essential, because abuse has no gender.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
