People rarely make formal arguments using natural language. This means that we have to "translate" or rephrase the statements expressed in a natural language into a pseduo-language which demonstrates the logical structure of the the argument.
For example, look at the OP: the quote being analyzed is a question. A question is not an argument. But there is clearly an argument being made. It is up to us to translate the question into an argument.
This gives us options. We can express the given quote in at least three unique ways, each true to the intent of the question, but each guilty of a different fallacy.
You can classify it as a non sequitur:
If you can't take care of your spouse then you can't take care of the country.
The consequent does not follow from the antecedent
You can also classify it as a faulty analogy:
Running a country is like running a household
Caring for a country is like caring for a spouse.
Could also be an abusive ad hominem:
Narendra Mod: I am fit to be prime minister
Critic: How so? You can't take care of your wife.
This attacks the person instead of their policies or track record.