The Allahabad High Court set aside a Bareilly family court order denying maintenance to a woman, on assumptions about her income as a YouTuber. The Court held maintenance cannot be denied without examining both spouses’ actual earnings carefully.
The Allahabad High Court set-aside a ruling by a Bareilly family court that denied maintenance to a woman based on her alleged income as a YouTuber.
The court emphasized that maintenance cannot be denied merely on assumptions without a thorough examination of both spouses’ actual earnings.
This decision came in response to a criminal revision filed by Farha Naz, challenging a March 10, 2025 order by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Bareilly, which dismissed her maintenance application.
ALSO READ: In-Laws Can’t Evict Widow from Matrimonial Home, Rules Kerala High Court
The family court had concluded that the woman was self-sufficient due to her earnings from creating reels and online content on YouTube.
In the revision hearing, Justice Harvir Singh remarked that while the family court assumed the wife had an income, it did not accurately assess the amount she was earning.
The court pointed out the absence of evidence to quantify her income or provide a concrete evaluation of her financial situation. The wife argued that the dismissal of her plea was based solely on the presumption of income from social media, without investigating whether that income was adequate for her livelihood.
She further contended that her husband, who worked as a Class III employee at the Nagar Palika in Bareilly and received a steady salary, was legally obliged to provide maintenance despite their marital discord.
Conversely, the husband challenged the plea, claiming that the wife was educated, self-employed, and able to support herself. He maintained that once a spouse starts earning independently, the obligation to pay maintenance is not automatic.
After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the high court criticized the family court’s methodology. Although the family court acknowledged the wife as self-employed, it failed to conduct the necessary structured assessment of both parties’ incomes.
The high court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh vs Neha, which established comprehensive guidelines for deciding maintenance.
The apex court determined that courts must require full disclosure of income, assets, and liabilities from both spouses, evaluated using supporting documents like income tax returns or salary slips. Only after this analysis can a fair and legally sound maintenance order be established.
Justice Singh stated,
“Unless the total income of both the wife and the husband is brought on record and evaluated, a correct assessment regarding entitlement and quantum of maintenance is not possible.”
In this case, the family court had merely acknowledged the husband’s employment while not verifying or quantifying the wife’s income as a YouTuber.
The court concluded that refusing maintenance based on unfounded assumptions about online earnings is not legally acceptable. It highlighted that the potential to earn and actual earnings are separate matters, and judicial conclusions should rely on evidence rather than speculation.
Consequently, the high court granted the revision, cancelled the March 10 family court order, and directed the family court to revaluate the income of both parties before making a new decision in accordance with the law.
Case Title: Farha Naz vs. State of U.P. and Another
Read Attachment