Farha Naz v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025
The High Court clarified that earning potential and actual income are distinct concepts, and maintenance cannot be denied merely because a wife is educated or engaged in some activity.
Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
22 December 2025
Judges
Justice Harvir Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The wife filed an application seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Bareilly.
-
The Family Court rejected her application solely on the ground that she is a YouTuber and earns money through Reels, holding that she is self-employed and capable of maintaining herself.
-
Aggrieved by this order, the wife approached the Allahabad High Court by filing a criminal revision.
-
The wife asserted that she was not earning any income, whereas her husband was a Class-III employee in Nagar Palika, Bareilly, with a regular and fixed salary.
Issues
-
Whether a wife’s application for maintenance can be rejected solely on the presumption that she earns income as a YouTuber or content creator?
-
Whether the Family Court can deny maintenance without quantifying income through documentary evidence?
-
Whether maintenance can be decided without calling for Income Tax Returns, salary slips, or other proof of income of both parties?
Held
-
The High Court held that mere assumptions about earning capacity cannot be the basis for rejecting a maintenance claim.
-
It was held that unless the actual income of both parties is established through documentary evidence, a correct decision on maintenance cannot be made.
-
The Court held that the Family Court acted mechanically and without application of mind by concluding that the wife was self-sufficient merely because she created online content
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces the principle laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, that courts must insist upon income affidavits and documentary proof before deciding maintenance.
-
The High Court clarified that earning potential and actual income are distinct concepts, and maintenance cannot be denied merely because a wife is educated or engaged in some activity.
-
The ruling protects women from speculative and presumptive findings relating to income, especially in the digital era where content creation does not automatically translate into financial independence.
-
The decision strengthens procedural fairness by requiring Family Courts to conduct a proper financial inquiry before deciding maintenance applications