Allahabad High Court Asks YouTuber Wife Seeking Maintenance To Disclose Income Before Family Court
The Allahabad High Court was considering a revision filed against the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, by which the prayer for maintenance was rejected.
The Allahabad High Court has allowed a revision filed by a woman whose maintenance application was rejected on the ground that she is a YouTuber and earns through her reels. Remitting the matter to the Family Court, the High Court held that the quantum of income ought to have been shown and placed on record.
The High Court was considering a revision filed against the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, by which the prayer for maintenance was rejected.
The Single Bench of Justice Harvir Singh held, “However, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court got misplaced with regard to the quantum of income, which ought to have been shown and placed on record before the Court as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 569, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 915. 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.”
Advocate Ashish Dwivedi represented the Revisionist while Advocate Abhinab Mishr represented the Opposite Party.
Arguments
It was the case of the revisionist wife that the Family Court dismissed the application for maintenance, solely on the ground that the revisionist is a YouTuber and is earning through her Reels. It was submitted that the income was not quantified, and a presumption that the revisionist was earning some money through reels was not sufficient.
On the contrary, the opposite party submitted that the revisionist is a qualified person capable of earning and managing sufficient resources, as she is a YouTuber.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Family Court arrived at the finding that the revisionist is a self-employed person and is capable of supporting herself. However, the Court got misplaced with regard to the quantum of income, which ought to have been shown and placed on record before the Court.
The Bench took note of the fact that the details of the income had not been fully assessed, and the income of the revisionist had not yet been quantified.
Thus, allowing the revision, the Bench set aside the order of the Family Court. “The matter is remitted back to the concerned family court, with a direction that the family court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law”, it ordered.
Cause Title: X v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:221884)
Appearance
Revisionist: Advocate Ashish Dwivedi
Opposite Party: Advocate Abhinab Mishra, Government Advocate Anupam Tripathi