This brief and readable essay was written when social forestry was being widely criticised for failing to meet its primary objective of supplying the fuel and fodder requirements of the rural poor and instead benefiting rich farmers. The essay offers an alternative perspective, with reference to Maharashtra. Using secondary data, the author demonstrates that a significant proportion of the rural population of Maharashtra comprised ‘landed poor’ subsisting below the official poverty line. He argues that such households may benefit from growing tree crops where they have been unable to grow agricultural crops due to poor quality land or lack of other inputs. It is also suggested that comparable situations may exist in other less densely populated states of India. While conceding that social forestry programmes may not have achieved their stated objectives, particularly in relation to the rural landless, the author argues that the value of increasing the incomes of poor landed rural households should not be discounted. Instead he suggests that the objectives of social forestry should be broadened and that the criteria for measuring success made more site-specific.