The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has petitioned the Supreme Court against PIL on uniform maintenance grounds, stating that the proposed legislation will completely restrict the “freedom of choice” of women currently available to claim maintenance will.
In its request for intervention, the Bar Association objected to the plea filed by Adv Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for “uniform maintenance” and said:
“It is up to the woman to decide which legislation / legal remedy is best suited to her complaint. The very nature of the prayer uttered in the present written petition is to limit and restrict the availability of legal remedies to women regardless of the nature of the complaint regarding their alimony and alimony to a single law. “
“The proposed law will completely limit the freedom of choice of women currently available to claim maintenance. Such an alleged unity with regard to prayer is neither desirable nor practicable ”, the AIMPLB continued in its request for intervention.
The AIMPLB has further submitted “that the expression and ‘habits and customs’ in Article 13 of the Constitution do not include the belief of any religious denomination which is embedded in personal laws. The Constituent Assembly was aware of the distinction between “Personal Law” and “Customs and Uses” and made a conscious decision to exclude personal law and include usages and customs in Article 13 of the Constitution. ”
“So if personal law is excluded from the definition of ‘applicable laws’ in Article 13, all questions of faith that are directly related to a religious denomination that are personal law matters cannot be examined on the anvil of Articles 14.15 , 21 and 44 of the Constitution of India “,
it further explains.
This intervention request was submitted as part of the Public Interest Litigation filed by attorney and BJP spokesman Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, which sought instructions to the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Women’s and Child Development on appropriate action take steps to eliminate the prevailing anomalies in the rules and laws on alimony and maintenance and unify them for all citizens without discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender or place of birth within the meaning of Articles 14, 15, 21, 44 and international conventions.
On December 16, 2020, a three-judge bank of the Apex Court, headed by Supreme Judge SA Bobde and composed of Judges AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, had the center, ministries of law and justice, and women’s development and development Notifies children. Senior attorney Meenakshi Arora appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the matter.
The petitioner has asserted that the damage done to the public is extremely great, as maintenance and support are among the most important parts of life and are usually brought to justice. For many citizens, livelihoods are the only livelihoods, so discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender or place of birth is a direct attack on the right to life, freedom and dignity guaranteed in Article 21.
“Even after 73 years of independence and 70 years as a socialist, democratic republic of India, maintenance laws are not only complex and cumbersome, but also violate the constitutional mandate to be equal, reasonable and fair. Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act 1956. Muslims are treated according to their status of valid marriage and prenuptial agreements and are governed by the Muslim Women Act 1986. Christians are governed under the Indian Divorce Act 1869 and parsing under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936, but none of these laws are gender neutral. Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Parish spouses receive different alimony payments under the same circumstances. Similarly, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Parish parents receive different child support payments under the same circumstances. Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Parson children also receive different maintenance payments. ”
said Upadhyay’s request.
also read: Supreme Court rejects request to extend term of office of chairman of the intellectual property appeals committee
The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court, as the guardian of the constitution and protector of fundamental rights, can declare that the discriminatory grounds for maintenance and support are contrary to Articles 14, 15, 21 and international conventions and that gender neutral, religious and neutral uniform guideline for Maintenance and support for all citizens.