The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a Family Court order that had dismissed a wife’s maintenance claim solely on the ground that she was a YouTuber earning from reels.
Justice Harvir Singh observed that the Family Court concluded that the wife was self-sufficient without undertaking any concrete assessment of her actual income.
The Court further held that a maintenance application cannot be adjudicated unless the income of the parties is properly quantified through documentary evidence such as Income Tax Returns or salary slips.
“Unless and until, the total income of both the parties, i.e. the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2, such as ITR, pay slips etc. or any other document supporting the income to 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”.
The wife (revisionist) approached the High Court assailing the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, which had rejected her maintenance application on the finding that she was a YouTuber and, consequently, self-employed and able to sustain herself.
Counsel for the wife, Advocate Ashish Dwivedi, argued that the Family Court was wrong to reject her application only because she makes reels.
He pointed out that there was no clear evidence of how much she actually earns, and that the court’s decision was based merely on an assumption that she makes some income from creating reels.
It was also stated that the wife had clearly mentioned in her application that she was not earning any income. In contrast, her husband is a regular Class III employee with the Nagar Palika in Bareilly and has a fixed salary, and is therefore required to maintain her.
On the other hand, the husband’s lawyer argued that the wife is educated and capable of earning and supporting herself.
Justice Harvir Singh, after hearing both sides, observed that the Family Court had wrongly assessed the wife’s income without any material on record, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha that income must be properly disclosed and proved.
The Bench also noted that the lower court had failed to call for the necessary documents to make a proper determination on maintenance.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and sent the matter back to the Family Court with directions to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
