Introduction:
In a significant and socially relevant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a wife’s application for maintenance cannot be rejected merely on the assumption that she earns money as a YouTuber or through making “Reels,” without any concrete assessment of her actual income. The Court emphasized that maintenance proceedings must be decided on the basis of verified financial material and not on presumptions or stereotypes regarding modern forms of income. The judgment reinforces that capability to earn and actual earnings are two distinct concepts in law, and courts must not conflate the two while deciding a woman’s right to maintenance.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Harvir Singh in a revision petition filed by Farha Naz, the wife (revisionist), challenging the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly. The Family Court had rejected her maintenance application solely on the ground that she was a YouTuber who earned through creating “Reels,” and was therefore self-employed and capable of maintaining herself. The opposite party, her husband, was admittedly a Class III employee in Nagar Palika, Bareilly, holding a regular government post with a fixed salary.
Aggrieved by the rejection of her claim, the wife approached the High Court, contending that the Family Court had committed a grave legal error by denying maintenance without examining any documentary evidence regarding her income or the husband’s income. The High Court, while setting aside the impugned order, reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, stressing that maintenance orders must be based on proper disclosure and quantification of income through reliable documents such as Income Tax Returns (ITRs), pay slips, or other financial records.
Arguments of the Wife (Revisionist):
On behalf of the wife, Advocate Ashish Dwivedi assailed the Family Court’s order as legally unsustainable, arbitrary, and contrary to settled principles governing maintenance under matrimonial law. It was argued that the Family Court dismissed the maintenance application solely on the presumption that the revisionist earns money by making YouTube “Reels,” without undertaking any factual inquiry into the extent, regularity, or sufficiency of such alleged income.
Counsel submitted that mere presence on social media or content creation platforms does not automatically translate into sustainable income, and even if some income is earned, the same must be quantified and assessed before drawing conclusions about financial independence. The impugned order, it was argued, was based on conjecture rather than evidence, as no material was brought on record to show how much the wife earned, whether such earnings were regular, or whether they were sufficient to maintain herself at a standard comparable to that of her husband.
It was further highlighted that in her maintenance application, the wife had categorically pleaded that she was not earning any income. This assertion was neither disproved by documentary evidence nor rebutted through cross-examination or production of financial records by the husband. Despite this, the Family Court presumed earning capacity and rejected the claim, which, according to the revisionist, amounted to a serious miscarriage of justice.
The wife’s counsel also emphasized that the husband was a regularly employed Class III employee in Nagar Palika, Bareilly, drawing a fixed and stable salary from a government body. In such circumstances, it was submitted, the husband was legally and morally bound to maintain his wife, particularly when no reliable evidence of the wife’s independent income was placed on record.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, where detailed guidelines were issued mandating disclosure of income and assets by both parties to enable courts to pass fair and reasoned maintenance orders. The Family Court’s failure to call for such disclosures, it was argued, rendered its order unsustainable.
Arguments of the Husband (Opposite Party No. 2):
On the other hand, counsel for the husband opposed the revision petition and sought to justify the Family Court’s conclusion. It was contended that the wife was a qualified and capable individual, actively engaged in content creation and social media activity, and therefore had the potential to earn sufficient income to support herself.
The husband’s side argued that maintenance is not meant to encourage idleness and that a spouse who is capable of earning should make reasonable efforts to maintain herself. According to the husband, the wife’s activity as a YouTuber demonstrated not only her skills but also her engagement in income-generating activity, and therefore she could not claim to be entirely dependent.
It was also submitted that courts must take note of changing social realities, where income is no longer limited to traditional employment and where digital platforms provide substantial earning opportunities. On this premise, the Family Court’s conclusion that the wife was self-employed and capable of maintaining herself was sought to be defended.
However, it is significant that no documentary evidence—such as bank statements, monetization records, ITRs, or platform-generated earning statements—was placed on record by the husband to establish the wife’s actual income. The argument rested largely on assumptions about earning potential rather than proof of earnings.
Court’s Judgment:
After carefully considering the rival submissions and examining the impugned order, the Allahabad High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the Family Court’s order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Justice Harvir Singh held that the Family Court had clearly erred in law by rejecting the maintenance application without undertaking a proper assessment of the income of either party.
The High Court observed that the Family Court had arrived at the conclusion that the wife was capable of supporting herself without any actual assessment or quantification of income. The mere observation that the wife is a YouTuber or earns through “Reels” could not, by itself, justify denial of maintenance. The Court categorically held that assumptions cannot replace evidence in maintenance proceedings.
The Bench emphasized that unless and until the total income of both parties is brought on record through documentary evidence, such as Income Tax Returns, pay slips, bank statements, or other credible material, a court cannot arrive at a just and correct conclusion regarding maintenance. The Court observed:
“Unless and until, the total income of both the parties, such as ITR, pay slips etc. or any other document supporting the income of either of the parties, is placed on record, only then a correct assessment can be made and thereafter an appropriate order can be passed with regard to maintenance.”
Justice Harvir Singh relied upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, which mandates full and frank disclosure of income and assets by both spouses. The High Court noted that the Family Court failed to follow these binding guidelines and did not call upon either party to produce the necessary financial documents.
The Court further clarified that capability to earn is not the same as actual earning, and a woman cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is educated, skilled, or engaged in some activity, unless it is shown that she earns sufficient income to maintain herself. The High Court also implicitly cautioned against judicial stereotyping of women engaged in social media or digital platforms, observing that such activities do not automatically imply financial independence.
In view of these findings, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the concerned Family Court with a clear direction to reconsider the maintenance application afresh, after calling for appropriate financial disclosures from both parties and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.