The petitioner wants the divorce, alimony and child support laws to be “gender neutral and religiously neutral”.
The Supreme Court declared on Wednesday with “great caution” ready to examine a plea to establish uniform guidelines for divorce, alimony and alimony for all religions.
The petitioner, attorney AK Upadhyay, argued that divorce, alimony and alimony laws in certain religions discriminated against and marginalized women. These anomalies, which vary from religion to religion, violate the right to equality (Article 14 of the Constitution) and the right to discrimination (Article 15) on the basis of religion and gender, and the right to dignity. Mr. Upadhyay wants the laws on divorce, alimony and alimony to be “gender neutral and religiously neutral”.
However, a three-judge bank, headed by Sharad A. Bobde, Chief Justice of India (CJI), asked Mr. Upadhyay if he really wanted the “destruction of personal laws” himself.
“You want all personal laws to be abolished?” Chief Justice Bobde asked senior attorney Pinky Anand, who advocated uniform grounds for divorce.
Ms. Anand said the petitioner is only asking for the anomalies in the various divorce laws that are followed in the country to be rectified.
“But it cannot happen without the abolition of personal laws … you are actually asking the court to tear down personal laws,” the CJI stated.
Uniform Civil Code
“Personal laws are not protected by Article 13,” argued Ms. Anand. She then referred to the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
Chief Justice Bobde said, “That [UCC] is for the government to do … The government can do anything. The government has the pulse of the people, or at least they should … How can we as a court destroy personal law? Can we repeal discriminatory practices without destroying personal rights? “
The articles in question provided for violations by the state of the fundamental rights of citizens. On the other hand, these “discriminatory” personal legal practices have been imposed by citizens of a particular faith against the women of their own community. “Articles 14 and 15, etc. constitute an injunction against the state,” the CJI said.
Senior attorney Meenakshi Arora, also for Mr. Upadhyay, said it was the responsibility of the state to intervene when personal legal practices resulted in marginalization and discrimination. “The state must ensure that religions are practiced in accordance with the constitution. The state should intervene when religious practices directly violate fundamental rights, ”she submitted.
Mr Upadhyay’s petition states: “Even after 73 years of independence and 70 years of India as a socialist-secular-democratic republic, laws relating to maintenance and support are not only complex and cumbersome, but also contrary to the constitutional mandate, equally rational and to be just ”.
He pointed out the various laws governing the customs of marriage, divorce, and interfaith alimony.
“Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains are subject to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act of 1956. Muslims are treated under the status of a valid marriage and marriage agreement and are subject to the Muslim Women Act of 1986. Christians are subject to the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 and Parsis under the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act of 1936, but none of these laws are gender neutral, ”the petition says.
You have reached your free item limit this month.
Subscription benefits include
Today’s paper
In a clearly arranged list you will find a mobile-friendly version of articles from the daily newspaper.
Unlimited access
Read as many articles as you want with no restrictions.
Personalized recommendations
A selected list of items that match your interests and preferences.
Faster pages
Switch between articles smoothly as our pages load instantly.
dashboard
A one stop shop to see the latest updates and manage your settings.
Instruction
We will inform you three times a day about the latest and most important developments.
Support quality journalism.
* Our digital subscription plans currently do not include e-paper, crosswords, and print.
Comments are closed.