How have courts interpreted the language in a marriage agreement where the husband's claim is that he is entitled to a family allowance?

Referring to an opinion of this court (City of Ukiah v. Fones (1966) 64 Cal.2d 104, 109-110, 48 Cal.Rptr. 865, 410 P.2d 369) in which we quoted with approval the language of Justice Spence in Estate of Coffin (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 469, 471, 71 P.2d 295, the Moore court further noted that " '[i]t is well settled that the right to a family allowance is strongly favored in our law and that it will not be held to have been waived or relinquished except where the language relied upon clearly and explicitly manifests that intention. [Citations.] ... "[A]ny uncertainty in the language of the agreement will be resolved in favor of the right." [Citation.]' " (In re Marriage of Moore, supra, 113 Cal.App.3d, at p. 28, 169 Cal.Rptr. 619.) The Moore court further held [36 Cal.3d 470] that the trial court abused its discretion in alternatively concluding that wife was capable of sufficiently providing for her own needs.