The SC's official website in its assets of sitting judges column gives Justice Mishra's declaration where she lists "two daughters to be married" against the liabilities column.

Your comments

SHE IS RIGHT.

SO FAR ONE ENTITLED FOR MAINTENANCE, IS LIABILITY OF THAT PERSON.

BUT I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT BENIFIT SHE EXPECTED FROM THIS DECLARATION?

nothing wrong in it in Indian society's context

I firstly read this news on Zeenews website.

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/assets/gsmisra.pdf

above is the link which discloses the assets of the Hon'ble judge.

What I believe is that the issue is being blown out of proportion.  The term liability may be technical term as per law but the important aspect is its interpretation.  In present context it conveys responsibility.

As far as Indian society is concerned, marriage of children has been considered as responsibility.  If the term liability has been used in the declaration, it shall not be considered that the Hon'ble judge considers her daughters as liability.  The Hon'ble Judge is a female and mother of the daughters.  By giving senseless interpretation to the words used, we must not undermine the majesty of a mother.

It is highly irresponsible and an idiotic statement of an Apex Court Judge simply to find a place on the First Page of all newspapers and on the Headlines of the TV Channels. It is highly condemnable not by us, but by the CJI. If the same is written by a party to a case before her, will she accept any explanation?

Sri Gurunarayana Rao is 100% correct. As a woman; as a mother; as a Judge that too Supreme Court Judge, ought not to have said or written like that. 

I personally feel that nowadays, girls are assets because immediately after marriage, they take away their husbands to their mother's house leaving the parents of the boy. The earning of the boy become the wealth of their family leaving the parents of the boy to old age home. As a Judge, she could have come across similar incidence in so many cases before her. In such a situation, mentioning the daughters as "liability" is some what .......

Can a Supreme Court Judge write like this in the official information/data 

Who has to correct 

Sorry state of affairs.

Sh. Y Prakash,

Before deleting below comment let us retrospect

" She will realize soon that “unmarried” daughters are “liabilities” and “married daughters ready for divorce” are “Huge Assets”

Why I commented so is because 60% posts in Family Law forum talks of women to be educated and self sufficent and people should treat them to be at par with men folk etc etc. I like these comments but when our own highest courts only female Ladyship brings the clock back then all the efforts of people who want to bring Indian women to 21st. century becomes futile so I would say educate these Lady and Lordships first who are holding highest chair first then talk in public forums.

However, Ladyship statement is not politicaly correct and she herself has turned the clock back.

Rgds

with due respect few of the members are fuming for nothing.

prior to making any caustic remark against any person please find out the meaning of term liability under Taxation Laws and their context too.

be cool in making any remark unless and until there is something absurd against you.

I think its too much pressure and kind of insulting to the daughters to be aware that the expenses for their marriage is deemed to be a responsibility of the parent. Its almost acknowledging that the daughters themselves would be incapable of earning anything substantial... More than the technicalities of the statement, the judgements implications by placing daughters expenditure as responsiblities is neither correct as per tax laws nor correct as per conduct expected from an HC judge.