Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision filed, against the Family Court’s order rejecting a YouTuber wife’s maintenance claim, the Single Judge Bench of Harvir Singh, J., allowed the revision, holding that the impugned order was liable to be set aside since the income details were not fully assessed as only a reference was made to the husband’s income and the wife’s income from YouTube was not quantified.
Background
The wife filed the present revision, claiming that her prayer for maintenance was rejected solely because she was a YouTuber and earned through her reels/content. She explained that the amount of income being generated was neither clear nor quantified. Thus, denial of maintenance on the mere presumption that she was earning some money through reels/social media was not enough.
She further contended that she did not claim that she was not capable of earning her livelihood and had no sufficient source of income, but her husband was a Class III employee in Nagar Palika, Bareilly, and had a fixed income. Thus, he was duty-bound to maintain his wife, even if there was matrimonial discord.
The husband contended that the wife was qualified and capable of earning a living as she was a YouTuber; thus, she was self-employed.
Analysis
Noting that the Family Court found that the wife was self-employed and capable of supporting herself, the Court stated that the Family Court got misplaced regarding the quantum of income, which had to be shown and placed on record as held by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
The Court stated that unless the total income of both parties, such as ITR, pay slips, or any other document supporting the claims regarding their income, was placed on record, only then could a correct assessment be made and an appropriate order could be passed for maintenance.
The Court held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside since the income details were not fully assessed, as only a reference was made to the husband’s income, and the wife’s income was not quantified.
Accordingly, the revision was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Family Court with a direction that the Family Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.
[Farha Naz v. State of U.P., Criminal Revision No. 1862 of 2025, decided on 09-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ashish Dwivedi
For the respondent: Abhinab Mishra, Anupam Tripathi, G.A.