Divorce alimony re 1/- only (seven years marriage)

It doesn't matter if she wanted to marry someone else-richer, love of her life etc. The key is encouraging divorced women to take a job and learn to not being a parasite!

Rebecca is a role model for all women. Very good Rebecca.

but why she took Rs 1 ? Is alimony is a must?If one has sufficient means to live then she should not take money from a person whom she does not think fit to live with!

@ Generic,


In this news I must say the Husband is smart. He knew post MCD laws where women who earlier left their rights for alimony in heat to get easy MCD have been flooding Courts now a days to seek alimony post MCD after few months though they earlier waived their such rights during MCD. I have placed several judgment in past here in LCI in which similar situation women have gone back to Court seeking alimony even though in MCD they waived such rights. Court openned up such cases stating "oh she is abala and since earlier she was under pressure beign abala she waived her rights"

Now the husband played smartly by forcing her to take as a token just Re. 1/- as her rights towards alimony and settle once for all MCD and any of her future claims be it so under public policy. As now what will happen is that this woman cannot go back to Court saying she now wants alimony and play usual abala cards that when earlier she sought MCD she was in pressure and was not awaire of her rights thus she waived her rights towards alimony and she was forced to accept only Re 1/- but now after realizing what I have done I am before you thus open my old case. Pop the case opens.... Now by seeking Re 1/- towards 'alimony' if she plays in future her usual abala cards then Court will not open the case as she herself accepted monetary "consideration" towards agreeing for MCD be it so it was then Re 1/-.

Thus husband played a smart card at the end and this case has nothing to do with woman making final decision as got mentioned by one writer above. She was meant to make such decision by a smart husband had she not made such decision she would have grayed her hair some more years seeking divorce which is written large by bare reading how many years they were leaving separate in the news item- read yourselves readers.

So it is the husband here who is role model and not his ex-wife.


Morale of news - always insist under "alimony" for some "jpointly mutually agreed consideration" amount be it paise 50 or Rs. 7 Cr but some amount should be "mutually agreed" and "paid" then and there so that in future case are not opened by a female spouse and they are welcome post their divorce to time pass here in family law forum getting ideas.

Ta ra rum pum pum..............

grey hair is not the problem sir..now a days lots of hair treatment/solutions are there..may be some are available in your Mediscrape.in  also..

:-)

in the news item it is stated that she did want to take money..this is not the smartness of the husband..

is not change of circumstance is not taken into account while deicding maintenance...if she approaches with ablaness..I dont know..hope you will enlighten..

She gave a special discount as she had another buyer ready. it was an off season discount you see  .....most of the women still try to oversell . 

The ideaa of selling a relation does not make sense at all but that's what our so called law says .