Maintenance Is Not A Bounty
Various marriage laws in India provide for maintenance/alimony to wife out of husband's income/property at the time of separation. Why? Why should a man share fruits of his labour to some woman, who just happen to be his wife- when he is not happy with the woman and making application to court for dissolution of a unhappy relationship? We give reward to people who has done his duties well, here a man is being forced to reward some person who has not done her duties.
Some law justifies maintenance on the ground that that a woman is entitled to receive maintenance when she is not "able" to maintain herself. When we will see the term ability, it cannot be held that an educated woman is not able to maintain herself- in today's society there are numerous employment, opportunity to work through which can easily earn something and able to maintain herself. Even uneducated woman can work as domestic help and can maintain herself easily. In any city, thousands of uneducated women are maintaining themselves (and also their families) just by working as a domestic help.
On the other hand various courts consistently say that even educated woman cannot maintain themselves! Is it not promotion to parasitism? Is it not promotion of lazyness in the society. Say for an example, a woman can easily earn Rs. 5000/- per month, but the court is giving her a maintenance for Rs. 10,000/- for she is not working. Who, in this world is going to work for Rs. 5000/- when she can get Rs. 10,000/- without working? Such maintenance provisions are against development of human beings, against incentive to work, against dignity of human labour and right of a man to enjoy fruits of his labour.
In a recent judgment the court said- No Maintenance to Able Bodied Educated Women:
As per newspaper report (Times of India, 14.05.2009), the District Court in Delhi Refused maintenance to a wife who was found able bodied and educated. Justice Rajendra Shastri said,
"An able bodied person expected to maintain himself and family members depended on him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, healthy and well versed cannot afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case."
The judgment is also took into consideration the applicant wife conduct like elopement of wife with his lover, abandonment of minor child and health of the husband. Nevertheless, the judgment is a step towards making maintenance laws, what it is.
Maintenance is not a bounty. It is not a birth right of a wife. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is for a woman, who cannot maintain herself & who has done the duties of a pious wife, to claim from her husband. Any woman, who has not done the duty of a pious wife, must not be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. The other point is "ability to maintain herself". A young healthy women, who is educated (even when not educated, can work as maid- many uneducated women are maintaining themselves that way) cannot be classified to be not able to maintain herself. The test is, whether a woman of applicants ability is able to maintain themselves in the society or not- if yes, no maintenance- if no, there is a case for maintenance.
Maintenance laws needs to be applied strictly and in rare circumstances. It is usurpation of fruits of labour of a man in the guise of gender biased welfare laws. Such usurpation cannot be allowed to be made in a routine manner.
Some law justifies maintenance on the ground that that a woman is entitled to receive maintenance when she is not "able" to maintain herself. When we will see the term ability, it cannot be held that an educated woman is not able to maintain herself- in today's society there are numerous employment, opportunity to work through which can easily earn something and able to maintain herself. Even uneducated woman can work as domestic help and can maintain herself easily. In any city, thousands of uneducated women are maintaining themselves (and also their families) just by working as a domestic help.
On the other hand various courts consistently say that even educated woman cannot maintain themselves! Is it not promotion to parasitism? Is it not promotion of lazyness in the society. Say for an example, a woman can easily earn Rs. 5000/- per month, but the court is giving her a maintenance for Rs. 10,000/- for she is not working. Who, in this world is going to work for Rs. 5000/- when she can get Rs. 10,000/- without working? Such maintenance provisions are against development of human beings, against incentive to work, against dignity of human labour and right of a man to enjoy fruits of his labour.
In a recent judgment the court said- No Maintenance to Able Bodied Educated Women:
As per newspaper report (Times of India, 14.05.2009), the District Court in Delhi Refused maintenance to a wife who was found able bodied and educated. Justice Rajendra Shastri said,
"An able bodied person expected to maintain himself and family members depended on him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, healthy and well versed cannot afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case."
The judgment is also took into consideration the applicant wife conduct like elopement of wife with his lover, abandonment of minor child and health of the husband. Nevertheless, the judgment is a step towards making maintenance laws, what it is.
Maintenance is not a bounty. It is not a birth right of a wife. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is for a woman, who cannot maintain herself & who has done the duties of a pious wife, to claim from her husband. Any woman, who has not done the duty of a pious wife, must not be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. The other point is "ability to maintain herself". A young healthy women, who is educated (even when not educated, can work as maid- many uneducated women are maintaining themselves that way) cannot be classified to be not able to maintain herself. The test is, whether a woman of applicants ability is able to maintain themselves in the society or not- if yes, no maintenance- if no, there is a case for maintenance.
Maintenance laws needs to be applied strictly and in rare circumstances. It is usurpation of fruits of labour of a man in the guise of gender biased welfare laws. Such usurpation cannot be allowed to be made in a routine manner.
Source...