Allahabad HC Restores YouTuber's Maintenance Plea Rejected Over Her Social Media Earnings

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside a Bareilly family court order that refused maintenance to a woman on the grounds that she earned money as a YouTuber, holding that such a conclusion cannot be reached

without a concrete determination of income supported by evidence.

The order was passed by Justice Harvir Singh while allowing a criminal revision filed by Farha Naz against a March 10, 2025, decision of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Bareilly, which had rejected her maintenance application. The family court had treated the woman as self-employed and capable of maintaining herself, relying on the fact that she created reels and content for YouTube.

Before the high court, the wife argued that the family court’s reasoning was based entirely on an assumption. Her counsel submitted that while the court concluded she earned through social media activity, it neither examined the extent of such earnings nor called for any material to show that the income, if any, was sufficient to sustain her livelihood. It was also pointed out that the husband was employed as a Class III employee in the Nagar Palika at Bareilly, with a regular and fixed source of income.

Opposing the revision, the husband maintained that the wife was educated, capable of earning, and already engaged in content creation on YouTube. On this basis, he argued that she could not seek maintenance and that the family court’s order required no interference.

Examining the record, the high court noted that the family court had indeed recorded a finding that the wife was self-employed, but failed to undertake the essential exercise of assessing income. Justice Singh observed that there was no discussion in the impugned order regarding how much the wife earned from her alleged YouTube activity, nor was there any material placed on record to quantify her earnings.

The court also found that while the family court briefly referred to the husband’s employment in the Nagar Palika, it did not examine his income in a structured manner. The absence of income-related documents from either side, the high court said, rendered the conclusion legally unsustainable.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh vs Neha, the high court reiterated that courts deciding maintenance applications must insist on disclosure of income and financial details from both spouses. The apex court has held that documents such as income tax returns, salary slips, or other credible material are necessary for a fair assessment before determining entitlement or quantum of maintenance.

Justice Singh held that the family court’s approach, which rested on presumption rather than proof, was contrary to settled law. The court emphasised that the mere possibility or capacity to earn cannot be equated with actual earnings, and maintenance claims cannot be dismissed without evaluating concrete financial data.

Allowing the revision, the high court set aside the March 10 order of the family court. The court remitted the matter to the concerned family court with a direction to reconsider the maintenance application afresh, in accordance with the law.

Moreover, the HC directed the family court to pass a fresh order after properly assessing the income of both parties, based on relevant documents and evidence.