Just why are you so gung ho on protecting the right of a man to kill his wife?
The man has a choice and gets to continue living. He can get his way and kill her or he can abandon her and leave her to the parents to take care of. Both ways, he lives and no one takes away his life.
Why is he not wanting to turn over the care to the parents since they wish to keep her alive? They also wish the money to be spent on rehabilitation which has not been done.
The constant claims of "her wishes" as witnessed by the husband (who now has a live-in) and his relatives mean ending her life. Seems one would need a little more proof than that. These claims ring hollow when there is money involved.
IMHO he wants to move on with his life with the money. He does not want to get a divorce and have to give up the money - he wants her to die. He then will not have to pay her fees for another ten - twenty years and when the money is spent, be responsible for her expenses.
Since these are the realities of what happens to him - there are sufficient grounds to question his motives and the judge should be protecting her rights since she is unable to speak for herself. A husband should not have the power of attorney over a wife unless she has provided that power of attorney in writing and witnessed. She did not. Therefore it is his word only. His situation improves greatly if she dies. Therefore, the judge or some court agent should be speaking for her rights.
So what happens if your wife is in an accident, or has a stroke, etc? That's not a very realistic comment.