'Income Not Quantified': Allahabad HC Sets Aside Family Court Order Denying Maintenance To Wife Saying She Earns From YouTube

A Bench of Justice Harvir Singh observed that the Family court had arrived at the finding that the wife is capable of supporting herself without an actual assessment.

The Court added that unless the income of the parties is quantified through documentary evidence like Income Tax Returns (ITR) or pay slips, the maintenance plea can't be decided.

"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".

Wife (Revisionist) moved the HC challenging the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, where her application seeking maintenance was rejected after concluding that she was a YouTuber and, therefore, self-employed and capable of maintaining herself.

Arguing for the wife, Advocate Ashish Dwivedi submitted that the Family Court committed a legal error by dismissing the application solely on the ground that the revisionist is earning through her 'Reels'.

He contended that it was not clear as to how much income is being generated and earned and the order was based merely on a presumption that the revisionist is earning some money through preparing the 'reels'.

It was further highlighted that in her plea, the wife had explicitly averred that she was not earning, whereas her husband (opposite party no. 2) is working as a Class III employee in Nagar Palika at Bareilly and he is a regular employee and has a fixed income and therefore, he is duty-bound to take care of his wife.

On the other hand, the Husband's counsel submitted that the wife is a qualified person and capable of earning and managing sufficient resources.

Justice Harvir Singh, after considering the rival contentions, noted that the Family Court erred in its assessment of the quantum of income, which ought to have been shown and placed on record before the Court, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The Bench further pointed out that the lower court had not called for the appropriate material to make a correct assessment regarding maintenance.

The High Court thus allowed the revision plea, set aside the order, and remitted the matter to the concerned Family Court with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.