A recent judgment says separating a man from parents is cruelty. How can the law support this bias that married women who leave their parental homes are only following a 'natural' course?
A recent judgment says separating a man from parents is cruelty. How can the law support this bias that married women who leave their parental homes are only following a ‘natural’ course?
The case of Narendra vs. K. Meena, that was heard by the Supreme Court yesterday, is of great interest to all. The bench presided by Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice L. Nageswara Rao passed the judgment that forcing a man to separate from his parents amounted to an act of cruelty.
While in this particular case, there were allegations made that the wife threatened the husband and harassed him, one needs to look at what the Bench had to say with respect to the separation of a man from his parents.
“In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason; she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her…. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income.”
By stating this, the apex institution has in fact granted a stamp of approval to the age old custom of woman leaving her house and joining the man’s family. That this is what was considered “normal” and that it would infact be unreasonable for her to want a separation.
What stings the most is the fact that they presume that men would not like to leave their families but that it was completely okay for women to do so.
The wording of their statements proves that it has always been taken for granted that the woman should leave her own home and parents behind but that would never be called ‘cruelty’. It is very startling that the highest court in the nation would say this.
Can we (reasonably) expect that the law should always be free from such bias?
21. Capricorn. Curious. Love to learn. Love to write. Figuring out life. read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, indivisual posts do not necessarily represent the platofrom's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
Falling in love, marriage, a hidden secret, divorce. Despite all this, Vinita noticed her life was full of love that came in various unexpected shades!
“Aap jinke kareeb hotey hain, woh badey kush naseeb hotey hain…”
Just as Vinita was settling down into the cab seat, the driver put on music and the song started to play. It took her back immediately to that evening ten years ago, when Gautam had sung that very same song to her on the first evening they had met. She could remember every single detail of that evening so very clearly.
Neena Gupta shares her terrifying childhood experiences of being molested - like most assault survivors who often go to great measures to minimise these incidents by remaining silent, she was scared to tell her parents.
Neena Gupta shares her terrifying childhood experiences of being molested – like most assault survivors who often go to great measures to minimise these incidents by remaining silent, she was scared to tell her parents.
Trigger warning: This deals with child sexual abuse and may be triggering for survivors.
Remember that evil bahu from Baghban who was all set to destroy the Great Indian Family? In reality, the daughter-in-law in many Indian households is forced to fight for her privacy and her very dignity.
“Demand for privacy by a married woman after she enters her matrimonial home cannot be dubbed as cruelty towards the husband to grant him divorce,” held the Delhi High court in a recent judgment. “Privacy is a fundamental human right. Oxford dictionary defines privacy as ‘a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people.’ So when a woman enters into matrimony, it is the duty of family members of her matrimonial home to provide her with some privacy”, added the judges.
How is Maintenance defined in the Indian constitution? And does it apply to live-in relationships as well? An introduction to Maintenance Laws in India.
What constitutes maintenance? [Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v State of Gujarat and Others (2005)] Under Indian law, the term ‘maintenance’ includes an entitlement to food, clothing and shelter, being typically available to the wife, children and parents. It is a measure of social justice and an outcome of the natural duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents, when they are unable to maintain themselves. (Courts have now moved towards a broader interpretation of “wife” to include women in relationships in the nature of marriage, or live-in relationships that satisfy certain conditions.)
Maintenance includes provision for residence [Komalam Amma vs. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai and Others (2008)] In a case decided on 14 November 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that maintenance necessarily encompasses a provision for residence and therefore ordered that the woman be provided with a residential facility similar to that which she had been accustomed in the past.