Destitution prevention or status prevention

Jogeshwar ji

we do not have to be in the legal profession to know interpretation of maintenance has changed over time. It is not now to prevent destitution, but to ensure reasonable standards of living, taking into consideration husband's income, if wife is not able to maintain herself. The emphasis is here is on maintaining and not on destitution. it is not necessary to prove that one is destitute before claiming maintenance. It is a much answered query. Please go to the threads again where an SC judgement is posted which clearly says that even working wives can claim maintenance. 

If I am wrong, legal experts can correct me. 

if a faulty husband(who deserted her/had extramarital affairs/ gave her cruelty) is dutybound to maintain her,it hasanother purpose

he's also made aware that he has a responsibility which he cant shrug away just like that,at the drop of a hat

if govt starts maintaining wronged women,how will their faulty husband learn lessons....rather they will get the message that they can use a women,and then throw her away at will

regarding she having ancestral property rights,so why shud he maintan her?again the argument i gave above applies.in addition to that,i will ask u smth....u will get the answer ur self........

a husband wants his wife to cook food daily,even though he can afford a cook ........in that case the wife shud refuse to cook for him as he can get his food cooked by this bawarchi also.so where's the wife's duty?

here the cook=ancestral property of the wife

"if a faulty husband(who deserted her/had extramarital affairs/ gave her cruelty) is dutybound to maintain her,"

If so, it is compensation and not maintenance.Why not wife too be made liable when she errs?

2.Scrap all extra-legal/legislation devices by judiciary.

3.You are going on repeating same wordings endlessly without llistening others' points of views

"In a significant judgment, the bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam gave a wider interpretation to the phrase "unable to 

maintain herself" and said: "….it would mean the means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and not the efforts made by her after the desertion." The expression, added the judges, does not imply that the wife should be a destitute before she can apply for maintenance."

Well, this has already been made yhe issue in the opening message.What do the aam admi/aurat say?

Is it OK?

In fact to my surprise, you are posting the already discussed matters. "Women parasites" matter has been discussed at length in the previous threads.

And women Parasites expression is objected to and I do object it again. 

Does the INTERPRETATION of law as presented by RG "to promote women parasites in the country."?

Just 2 laws in practice.

1.Facts and law remaining the same INTERPRETATION can be anything as their lordships please.

2.Ignore the facts and law and PREVAIL the opinion and that is the   law in the case in hand.

Hence collective conscience is the need of the day.

@RG

TIMES OF INDIA, DELHI 14.05.2009

‘Woman who can work needs no maintenance’
Smriti Singh | TNN

New Delhi: Can a “well qualified” woman capable of getting a decent job seek maintenance from her “not so qualified” husband? The trial court says no.
Dismissing the concept of women being the “weaker s*x” and urging them to work rather than being dependent on their “pati parmeshwar”, a district court rejected the plea of a woman seeking maintenance from her mentally disturbed and unemployed husband.
“True, an able-bodied person can be expected to maintain himself and family members dependent upon him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, healthy and well-versed cannot afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case,” additional district judge Rajender Kumar Shastri said.
“According to Hindu mythology, a woman had to remain dependent her entire life. All such notions have disappeared into oblivion now. Women are not parasites. The concept of “pati parmeshwar” has already been jettisoned and is substituted by equal partner in life. We cannot allow this better half to remain a protege of her male partner for life,” ADJ Shastri added.
Seeking a maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month along with Rs 21,000 as litigation expenses, the woman had knocked on the court’s door after her husband had filed a divorce case in the court alleging that his wife was having an affair with an another man and was treating him cruelly.
In her petition, the woman said she had no independent source of income and was dependent on her father for survival. She also claimed that her husband was employed and was earning Rs 20,000 per month as salary.
Her husband denied all the claims. Filing a reply through his counsel M K Magan, the man claimed that he was earlier working in some shop and earned a meagre salary. After the turbulence in his married life, he lost his job. He alleged that his wife had abandoned her son also and eloped with another man.
He also claimed that he was receiving treatment at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, Shahadra. During deliberations, the court found out that the applicant was unemployed. The court also noted that the woman was a graduate and her husband had only cleared his senior secondary examination.
Cautious about not “pre judging” the case at the initial stage, the court after hearing the arguments, noted that it could not shut its eyes from the allegations made by the husband which were supported with evidence. “It will be unjust to emburden the husband to pay maintenance to the wife who is equally able bodied and rather more qualified and competent to earn,” ADJ Shastri said while dismissing the application.
‘WIFE EQUALLY ABLE’
What the judge said
It will be unjust to burden the husband to pay an amount of maintenance to wife who is equally able and rather more qualified and competent to earn With development of society, women are not parasites upon male members of their family The vestiges of male chauvinism are being weeded out. We cannot allow this better half (woman) to remain protege of her male partner forever NOT THE FIRST TIME
 

Do you agree with the observations of the learned judge given below?

.“True,an able bodied can be expected to maintain himself and family members dependent upon him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, health and well-versed can not afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case.” “According to Hindu mythology,a woman had to remain dependent her entire life. All such notions have disappeared into oblivion now. Women are not parasites.The concept of “pati parameshwar” has already been jettisoned and is substituted by equal partner in life. We can not allow this better half to remain a protégé of her male partner for life.” (The Times of India(DelhiEdition), dated 14/5/2009,page4)
Created by: Jogeshwar
10 votes (83%)
Yes.
2 votes (16%)
No.
12 votes
total.

Do you agree with the observations of the learned judge given below?

.“True,an able bodied can be expected to maintain himself and family members dependent upon him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, health and well-versed can not afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case.” “According to Hindu mythology,a woman had to remain dependent her entire life. All such notions have disappeared into oblivion now. Women are not parasites.The concept of “pati parameshwar” has already been jettisoned and is substituted by equal partner in life. We can not allow this better half to remain a protégé of her male partner for life.” (The Times of India(DelhiEdition), dated 14/5/2009,page4)
Created by: Jogeshwar
7 votes (100%)
Yes.
0 votes (0%)
No.
7 votes
total.

Do you agree with the observations of the learned judge as given below?

.“True,an able bodied can be expected to maintain himself and family members dependent upon him. The same is equally applicable to his wife. In an advanced society like ours, a woman who is young, health and well-versed can not afford to sit idle, particularly when facing difficult circumstances, as the applicant in this case.” “According to Hindu mythology,a woman had to remain dependent her entire life. All such notions have disappeared into oblivion now. Women are not parasites.The concept of “pati parameshwar” has already been jettisoned and is substituted by equal partner in life. We can not allow this better half to remain a protégé of her male partner for life.” (The Times of India(DelhiEdition), dated 14/5/2009,page4)
Created by: Jogeshwar
13 votes (92%)
Yes.
1 vote (7%)
No.
14 votes
total.

I will wait for what legal experts in this forum have to say on this. And I am really amused the way votes have been collected and on the sample size of the voters! Not to mention the gender identity of voters have not been revealed. 

If women are parasite, this jogeshwar type of men are carcass of the society and by decaying them, the women parasites are doing social service and are keeping the environment pollution free.

"errant husbands are more than errant wives"

Fine This is wonderful issue.Let all errants go to jail.We will count the heads there to verify your claim.