judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash
Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [AIR 1968 Delhi 174]
wherein it has been opined thus:-
“An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be
capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able
reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be
heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be
able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is
for such able-bodies person to show to the Court cogent
grounds for holding that he is unable to reasons beyond his
control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of
maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not
disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the
presumption will be easily permissible against him.”
22. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is absolutely
clear that once the husband is an able-bodied young man capable of
earning sufficient money, he cannot simply deny his legal obligation
of maintaining his wife.
23. It has to be remembered that when the woman leaves
the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived
of many a comfort. Sometimes the faith in life reduces. Sometimes,
she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling
that her fearless courage has brought her misfortune. At this stage,
the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is
bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm
for which she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the
lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance. [ Ref: Shamima
Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (supra)].
24. The learned counsel for the husband has vehemently
argued that the learned courts below have ignored the fact that the
wife is earning Rs.9,000/- by taking her income only to be Rs.5000/-.
I am afraid that such contention is belied from the records as the
learned appellate court has duly taken into consideration the fact that
the wife was getting a salary of Rs.9,000/-.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.26 of 2015 and Cr.
Revision No. 369 of 2014.
Date of decision: 1.6.2015.
Vipul Lakhanpal Vs. Smt. Pooja Sharma
Coram
Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Citation; 2015 CRLJ 3451HP
