YEARS
The Supreme Court has made a big comment on maintenance allowance. The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mittal said that among Hindus, marriage is the foundation of a sacred sacrament. This is the foundation of the family, it should not be seen as a business. Alimony laws are for the welfare of women.
There are many challenges in every girl’s life before and after marriage. Sometimes pressure of dowry and sometimes fear of violence in relationships. Laws were made to protect women from these difficult situations and to assure their safety. These laws are not just paper rules but a shield which not only gives them the strength to fight injustice but also gives them the courage to live their lives with self-respect. In Indian families, after the breakdown of marriage, there are fights between husband and wife regarding maintenance. The Supreme Court has drawn a line on the legal stakes that have been played for years. After the Atul Subhash case, the debate on women’s laws has moved from the streets to the Parliament and now the court. The Supreme Court has once again expressed concern over domestic violence and misuse of dowry laws. The Supreme Court has advised women not to misuse these laws, which have been made for their protection.
The Supreme Court has made a big comment on maintenance allowance. The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mittal said that among Hindus, marriage is the foundation of a sacred sacrament. This is the foundation of the family, it should not be seen as a business. Alimony laws are for the welfare of women. Its purpose is not to extort money from the husband. Alimony laws should not be a means to threaten, punish and dominate the husband. We have objection to the way property is distributed equally to the other party in the name of maintenance or alimony. Alimony is not meant to make the economic status of a woman equal to that of a man but to give her a better life. This comment of the Supreme Court has been made in the case of a couple getting divorced. The wife’s complaint was that the husband was giving her a much less share than the original property. Rejecting the argument of equal distribution, the Supreme Court also asked that if the husband’s financial condition worsens tomorrow, will the wife give equal rights to her former husband in her property?
other news
