The SC seeks the center for a response to the call for a unified divorce law India News

NEW DELHI: A quarter of a century after the claim in the Sarla Mudgal case The Supreme Court cautiously maintained two PILs on Wednesday that the country could not tolerate a delay in the adoption of a uniform civil code uniform divorce laws and uniformity in the provision of maintenance and support for women and sought the answer of the center.
Senior lawyers Pinky Anand and Meenakshi Arora, who appeared for petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, argued that different forms of divorce and different means of maintenance and alimony for women provided for by personal law violate the right to equality and non-discrimination and constituted a violation of women’s rights to dignity, which is an integral part of their right to life.
A bank run by Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian appeared to be prudent, fearing that this would encroach on the personal laws of religious minorities who are sensitive to what they believe to be constitutionally guaranteed autonomy.
“Can we eliminate discriminatory practices against women in different religious communities without interfering with their personal laws?” asked the bank.
However, the Anand-Arora duo, a strategic decision made by Upadhyay to argue their case, made a strong pitch for the court to overcome their hesitation. The bank reminded Anand of this the apex court stepped up against personal laws when it ruled that Triple Talaq’s immediate divorce among Muslims was unconstitutional.
Arora spoke out in favor of judicial intervention, stressing that, despite the admonition of the Supervisory Committee in the Mudgal decision, the Union government had not attempted to introduce a uniform civil code. “Women and gender equality go hand in hand. How can maintenance be different for women belonging to different religions?” She asked.
Still not convinced, the bank said it was not the state that discriminated against women from different communities. “It is citizens who discriminate against fellow citizens through the application of personal laws. Can that be called discrimination by the state on the basis of gender?” the CJI asked.
However, Arora insisted, saying, “It is the duty of the state to ensure equality and dignity for all women, regardless of religion.”
Even when the bank came by to notify the center, it made it clear that it was doing so “with great caution”, its approach contrasting starkly with the assertiveness it showed in the 1985 Shah Bano case. “A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by eliminating differing loyalties to laws with conflicting ideologies,” the court had clearly stated at the time.
In the 1995 Sarla Mudgal case, where it left off a decade ago, it was said: “If more than 80% of citizens have already been placed under codified personal rights, there is no justification for being in the To keep things pending even more the introduction of a uniform civil code for all citizens in India. ”
Also in 2003, in the case of John Vallamattom, the Supervisory Committee emphasized the need to achieve the objective set out in Article 44 of the Constitution.
On September 13, 2019, the monitoring committee in the case of Jose Paulo Coutinho reiterated the need for UCC Upadhyay cited the Goa example, but the center had not taken any step to provide uniform maintenance and support grounds for all Indian citizens, Upadhyay said in its PIL.
“Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain communities are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956. Muslims are treated according to valid marriage status and marriage agreement and are governed by the Muslim Women Act of 1986 Christians the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 and Parsis the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936. However, none of these laws are gender neutral and provide different grounds for divorce and maintenance payments, “said the petitioner.