I agree that none of these alleged reasons invalidates the scriptural principle at 1 Timothy 5:8, assuming that both husband and wife are JWs.
1) The wife having material resources of her own is irrelevant - scripturally speaking, it is the man's responsibility to ensure the whole 'household' has their needs - material and spiritual - met. If the couple mutually agree that the majority of the income from the family should come from the wife (either because she has higher qualifications and a better paying job, and/or perhaps because he is going to 'pioneer') that's up to them, but the ultimate responsibility still rests on his shoulders. Also, if she happens to have separate means (eg: an inheritance due, previous investments from before the marriage, like property or whatever), that does not justify a husband failing to provide for his family.
2) and 3) - These are only relevant if he is not responsible for abuse, as you say. If the husband has abused the wife, then the scripture at 1 Corinthians 7:10-13 comes into play, which even the GB has acknowledged is potential grounds for separation. Explicitly, this applies to "unbelieving" husbands - that a man who is "agreeable" to being with his wife would not abuse her. But the principle covers believing mates too. In The Secret of Family Happiness book, chapter 12 paragraph 24 it says:
"What about Christians who are currently being battered by an abusive spouse who shows no sign of changing? Some have chosen to stay with the abusive spouse for one reason or another. Others have chosen to leave, feeling that their physical, mental, and spiritual health—perhaps even their life—is in danger. What a victim of domestic violence chooses to do in these circumstances is a personal decision before Jehovah. (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11) Well-meaning friends, relatives, or Christian elders may wish to offer help and counsel, but they should not put pressure on a victim to take any particular course of action. That is his or her own decision to make. — Romans 14:4; Galatians 6:5."
It skirts over the possibility of the abuser being also a 'Christian', but the principle is clear. Note, it even states clearly that "Christian elders" should not "pressure" the victim. A text worth having to hand in case any of your local elders try to interfere.
Another point: In the Shepherd book, the question "If the family is destitute, is it because they have rejected the family head’s provisions by choosing to live apart from him?" is followed by another which should make the elders consider other factors.
However, that follow-up question is: "When a separation is involved, to what extent is the wife responsible?" but that wording puts the emphasis in the wrong place. IMO, it should be: "When a separation is involved, to what extent is the husband's behaviour responsible?"
As for the expression "material resources", it's true that the scripture at 1 Timothy 5:8 is specifically about material care, but the org has always highlighted that husbands are also responsible for the spiritual and emotional welfare of their household too, so even if the primary income for the family comes from the wife or from the state (in the form of benefit payments), the husband still has the responsibility for the overall welfare of the household.
A last bit of advice: writing in paragraphs would make your points stand out better. Seeing a big block of unbroken text can put readers off, even if the content is of interest.
