ORDER

1. By way of this application, the applicant-husband has challenged the order of the learned Family Court, Porbandar dated 17.03.2025 whereby the learned Family Court Judge had ordered the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- to the applicant No.1-wife therein, Rs.4,000/- to the minor child and in total, Rs.6,000/- to both the applicants therein.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Samir B. Bundela submitted that the respondent-wife is serving as helper in Aanganwadi and is earning Rs.5,500/- per month and she had completed her higher studies and before her marriage, she was serving as a teacher at Bhavapara and therefore, prayed that the present application be granted, setting aside the order of Family Court.

3. While countering the above arguments, learned advocate for the respondents Ms. Urmila A. Desai referring to the observations made by the learned Family Court Judge submitted that the applicant-revisionist husband is working as a Clerk with the Coast Guard and his monthly income is Rs.25,000/-. It is further submitted that the applicant is having one house at Village Chhaya which has been given on rent and also holds a plot in HUDCO Society. The learned trial Court Judge has observed the monthly income of Rs.30,000/- of the applicant, he has no other responsibility and he is coming from afÒuent and well to do family and therefore, urged to reject the present application.

4. Having heard the submissions canvassed and on perusing the records of the case, it is clear that the learned Family Court Judge while considering the income of the wife as Rs.5,500/- per month, has granted only Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the child.

5. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, it has been noted in Paragraphs 90 to 92 where the observations has been made with regard to the earning of the wife as well as maintenance of the minor child. The same are reproduced as under :-

“(c) Where wife is earning some income

90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments.

90.1. In Shailja and Anr. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199, this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufÏcient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufÏcient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.

90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufÏcient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.

90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694 while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufÏcient to deny the claim of maintenance.

90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufÏcient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufÏciently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash AIR 1968 Delhi 174. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufÏcient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the hu