In a significant intervention on spousal maintenance and digital-age livelihoods, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to examine whether a woman’s alleged income as a YouTuber can, by itself, justify denial of maintenance, raising serious concerns over courts relying on assumptions rather than verified financial records while deciding a spouse’s right to support.
The controversy began when a Family Court in Bareilly rejected a woman’s maintenance plea solely on the premise that she earns through YouTube reels. Challenging that order, the wife approached the High Court, arguing that no court can presume financial independence without first determining the actual quantum of income.
Counsel contended that while the husband holds a stable Class III post with the Nagar Palika in Bareilly and earns a fixed salary, the Family Court neither quantified the wife’s alleged earnings nor assessed comparative incomes before shutting the door on maintenance. The husband’s side, however, maintained that the wife is educated, self-employed as a content creator, and capable of sustaining herself.
Taking a clear-eyed view of the record, the High Court found the Family Court’s approach legally unsustainable. While noting that the lower court treated the wife as “self-employed,” the High Court held that the decisive error lay in skipping the mandatory exercise of income assessment. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court underscored that maintenance decisions must rest on concrete financial disclosures, not conjecture.
In a pointed observation, the Court said that “unless and until the total income of both the parties… such as ITR, pay slips etc., or any other document supporting the income… is placed on record, only then a correct assessment can be made.” Finding that the wife’s income was never quantified and the husband’s earnings were only cursorily noted, the Court set aside the Family Court’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Consequently, the revision was allowed, and the Family Court was directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after properly assessing the incomes of both parties.
Case Title: Farha Naz Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. - 1862 of 2025
Coram: Justice Harvir Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Ashish Dwivedi
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Abhinab Mishra, Anupam Tripathi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
