Assumed Social Media Income No Ground to Deny Maintenance: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside an order of a Bareilly family court that denied maintenance to a woman on the ground that she earned income as a YouTuber, holding that maintenance cannot be refused on assumptions without a proper assessment of the actual income of both spouses.

The order was passed in a criminal revision filed by Farha Naz, who had challenged a March 10, 2025 order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Bareilly, rejecting her application for maintenance. The family court had concluded that the woman was self-employed and capable of maintaining herself as she earned money by making reels and online content on YouTube.

Hearing the revision, the bench of Justice Harvir Singh noted that while the family court proceeded on the premise that the wife was earning, it failed to determine how much income she actually generated. Court observed that there was no material on record to quantify her earnings, nor was there any concrete assessment of her financial capacity.

The wife had argued that the family court dismissed her plea solely on a presumption that she earned money through social media, without examining whether such income was sufficient to sustain her livelihood. She further submitted that her husband was working as a Class III employee in the Nagar Palika at Bareilly, drawing a fixed salary, and was therefore legally bound to maintain her despite matrimonial discord.

On the other hand, the husband opposed the plea, asserting that the wife was educated, self-employed, and capable of supporting herself. He argued that once a spouse is earning independently, the obligation to pay maintenance does not automatically arise.

After considering the rival submissions, the high court found fault with the family court’s approach. It noted that although the family court recorded a finding that the wife was self-employed, it did not undertake the mandatory exercise of assessing the income of both parties in a structured manner.

The high court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh vs Neha, which laid down detailed guidelines for determining maintenance. The apex court had held that courts must insist on disclosure of income, assets and liabilities of both spouses and assess them on the basis of documentary evidence such as income tax returns, salary slips or other supporting material. Only after such an exercise can a fair and legally sustainable order on maintenance be passed.

Justice Singh observed that 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 the present case, the family court had merely noted that the husband was employed in the Nagar Palika, while the wife’s income as a YouTuber was neither verified nor quantified.

Court held that denying maintenance on the basis of vague assumptions regarding online earnings was unsustainable in law. It underlined that the capacity to earn and actual earnings are distinct considerations, and courts must base their conclusions on evidence rather than conjecture.

Accordingly, the high court allowed the revision and set aside the March 10 order of the family court. The matter was remitted back to the family court with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after properly assessing the income of both parties.

Case Title: Farha Naz vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: December 9, 2025

Bench; Justice Harvir Singh