Is maintenance law fair with men?


I came to know that some people feel maintenance law is fair because it allows both men and women are eligible for maintenance depending on their financial position. They are right only partially. Because, law is fair but how people interpret them go against men generally. And need not to say, our women organizations feels that maintenance is man’s duty, women need not to pay, because traditionally it is man’s duty to provide. But these same women organizations says that if some one feel cooking is women’s duty then they are sexists.

I have a discussion in Indian home makers blog regarding this. I am pasting my comments here …

there are many cases where women got alimony or maintenance even when she is earning enough. May be the maintenance law is bit fair and gender neutral in nature but still our society feels, it is the duty of man to protect and provide. So, generally men has to pay maintenance. And women organizations strongly believe this and vociferously supports it.

Some court rulings …

1. A man earning 2000 asked to pay 1200 INR (60% of his salary) as maintenance  The Irony is wife Nalini earning 9000 INR per month, four times more than her husband. Still, man has to pay the maintenance.

Husband to pay 60% of salary as maintenance

2. Wife doing job and earning 20,000 per month (She did MBA), still she got 40,000 per month as maintenance from her hubby who is of course an IITian, but seems lost job because of the legal mess created during divorce procedure. Ironically, they are married for 12 days only. And he has to face the dowry case also additionally. ( No doubt he lost his job and self confidence also).

Rs40 thousand per month: Woman gets whopping alimony

3. And In one ruling man ordered to pay maintenance even though he is jobless. If the husband is jobless then why he need to take care of his wife? Why don’t wife do the job and pay maintenance to him? or no maintenance at all from either of them. Judge said .. ” A husband has to take care of his wife somehow or other even if he is jobless “.

Husband should pay maintenance even if he is jobless: HC

Then where is the equality? Where are all those self respected women?

Actually the problem is everyone interpret the law differently. It’s depend on judge. Some favors it, some don’t favors it. The general perception of the society influencing everyone.

Let us come to some other laws regarding money. Look at 498A or DV.  By (Mis)using them, women can get lot of money as maintenance legally and illegally (extortion).

IrBM Clause (Irretrievable breakdown of marriage) which allows women to claim share in man’s property. Actually women organizations tried to grab the property of man not only he earned but also the ancestral property. But it seems that didn’t worked. But, wife definitely get a share in man’s property. The Irony is when property shared, only man’s property considered for sharing not women’s property. What about this? I must say, because maintenance law is bit fair these laws are enacted to grab man’s property. Some feminists even said, because women are not getting property share, they are misusing 498A. So, to stop that man must share his property. How ridiculous ..!! There is no difference between these women organizations and the men who claim rapes happening because of dress that victim wear.

Why IrBM should be rolled back

And there is one more law in the queue which allows to share man’s property equally, including ancestral property. But I don’t think so, they are going to consider women’s property for sharing. Where is that self respect now? Man is nothing but an ATM machine these day. He has to pay that’s all.

Advertisements
Published in: on March 24, 2013 at 8:52 am  Comments (9)  
Tags: , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: