Is Interim Order of Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC Unconstitutional and Against The Morality of UDHR?
I am writing this article by exercising my fundamental rights conferred by Article 19 sub section 1(a) of Constitution of India.
More clues on My Facebook link: -
I have collected some point by that it can be proved that interim order of maintenance u/s 125 CrPC is unconstitutional. Before we start we must have a close look thoroughly the UDHR , Constitution of India, CrPC 125 bare act and Indian Evidence Act from the following links. If somebody reads total 30 Articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR - link given below) of UNO (United Nations Organisation ) closely then he/she must understand that these are all gender, race, place of birth and religion neutral. These articles impede any nation (or its parliament) to create any such laws/acts by which they may rule like medieval barbaric and autocrat way (Like Taliban Law). India is also member of UNO and signatory of UDHR. Fundamental rights, Economic Social and Cultural rights conferred by Indian constitution is primarily the subset of these articles. However Not all. These Fundamental rights, Economic Social and Cultural rights conferred by Indian constitution impede Indian parliament to abridge human rights of Indian and autocracy of Indian parliament. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by UNO is the prime law framework of every nation and the root node of law hierarchy of every nation. It is our absolute duty to establish Universal Declaration of Human Rights Adopted by UNO to everywhere on the globe .
INDIA IS A SIGNATORY OF UDHR.
UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
The Constitution of India.
CrPC 125 Bare Act.
Indian Evidence Act
Grounds of Public Interest Litigation(PIL) under Article 32 of Constitution of India.
Note: - Filing PIL is a fundamental right of all Indian under aforesaid article. There is no such law that hiring an advocate is necessary to plead any case. Any person can plead any case by securing power of attorney with the subject of "PERMISSION OF COUNCIL" u/s 32 of Advocate Act.
1) The basic concept of Indian Judiciary is presumption of innocence in criminal trials as per Article 11: Right to the presumption of innocence of UDHR. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" – Sir William Blackstone. “Our basic concept of Jurisprudence that let the 100 culprits may go free but no innocent should be punished.” The Supreme Court of India Sampath kumar -Vs- Inspector of police, krishnagiri which was decided by their Lordships of Apex court Justice T.S.Thakur.
However, Interim order of maintenance is awarded to wives by assuming that the submission of facts by them are true and by presuming guilty of all husbands.
2) As per Article 20(3) "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."
However, husbands are pressurized to disclosed their private data like, income details, bank statements to extort them and wives are not pressurized.
3) As per CrPC 125 (4)" No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. "
However, interim order of maintenance is awarded without examining the truth of her submission of facts.
4) As per Indian Evidence Act; Section 101. Burden of proof.—"Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
However, interim order of maintenance is awarded without examining her asserted facts on the petition where such fact exist or not where burden of proof of existences of such fact lies on her head.
5) As per Indian Evidence Act; Section 102. On whom burden of proof lies Illustrations (a) "A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B’s father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A. "
Here A is the petitioner wife and B is the responded husband. A asserts that matrimonial disputed facts exist due to the fault of B. A also asserts that she is unable to maintain herself without any valid reason and proofs. Before interim order "no evidence were given on either side" B should be entitled as innocent, however B is presumed as guilty and A is allowed to extort his money by Dacoity.
6) All are equal irrespective of race, s*x, religion and place of birth as per Article 7: Equality before the law of UDHR and Article 14. of Indian Constitution. Also as per Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) not only wives but also husbands are eligible for maintenance and alimony.
However, as per CrPC 125 section 1(a) only wives are entitled for maintenance. Also as per CrPC 125 secion 1(d) only son is liable to maintain his parents but not daughter.
7) Discrimination based on race, s*x, religion and place of birth is prohibited as per Article 15 on Indian Constitution. Limited discrimination is allowed only on public property as per Article 15(3) as the its limitation/scope is within Article 15(1) and (2)
However, maintenance/alimony laws are gender biased, where these are awarded from husband's personal property.
There is one good article on https://themalefactor.com/2013/12/29/article-153-of-indian-constitution-when-exception-is-the-rule/
8) Article 15(3) gives NO POWER to the state (The definition of the STATE is as per Article 12 of Indian Constitution) to abridge, truncate or narrow down any right conferred by Article 14 since its scope and limitation is withing within Article 15(1) and (2) . Hence all gender biased laws like 498A, PWDVA, 125 CrPC, 497, 495, all Rape related laws are unconstitutional.
However, ministry of women and child exceeds its power limits and created gender biased laws.
9) No maintenance for wives who cant prove cruelty: BOMBAY HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.226 OF 2002
Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale, Age : 35 years, Occu.Service,
However, interim order of maintenance is awarded to wives by presuming husband as guilty without examining truth of submitted disputed facts.
10) This is very unfortunate that Indian male are prosecuted on such laws those are not only unconstitutional but also against the moral value of human rights (UDHR). These entire story deprives Article 3: Right to life of UDHR and Article 21(Right to life) of Indian Constitution.