The law talks about "current capacity (as a ground reality) to earn and pay from that" not "envisaged or opined capability, by the Hon Court, to earn and pay from that"
Concept of capability can't be judged by Court or anybody else except that person who, in reality, to convert the capability ino capacity.
Hon Court's inflated opinion about a person's capability has merely a "motivational/ encouragement " value and nothing more!!!! Hon Judiciary is making a person's past record.......as a burden!!! although the past track record has lost the relevance in 'current context'
hon Court may "envisage the capability of the person taking into account the previous track record" but it is error prone..because judiciary is not a "job recruiter or Job giver or HR manager"
If the job Giver says that individual has capability to earn and actualy creates that person a job/employment...then only one is liable to make opinions about other's capability.
Hence maint. related judgements and figures of maint arrived using "envisaged capability of a person to earn and pay out of earings" is erroneous.
This is a compititive world
Example:
It's like "some ex-cricketer 's wife going to court and saying that............ my husband had capability like Tendulkar and his initial track record better than tendulkar...he scored three centuries consecutively in debut...which even tendulkar didnit do......hence whether my hubby maintains the position in team or not!!!........it should be envisaged as his capability and earnings in 8 digits............and He be made to give me a hude maint irespective of his current ground reality/capacity !!!!.................that he is working as a coach of mohalla team...and earning peanut!!!"
If the that ex-cricketer had the capability....then he would have been the most happy and more than pleased to be in the national team and pay maint from his 8 figure earnings!!!!
