- Petition seeking equal divorce and alimony in Supreme Court
- BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay has filed a petition
- Supreme court issued notice to central government
Advocacy of Uniform Civil Code has been arising in the country for a long time. All parties have argued about this. Currently, a petition has been filed in the top court of the country demanding uniform divorce law and equal maintenance allowance. The Supreme Court has summoned the reply from the Central Government in this regard. However, the court has said that this matter is related to personal law, how can we interfere in this? But notice is being issued with precaution.
What is the demand in the petition
The petition seeks to fix a common divorce and alimony. It has been urged to fix an equal ground by removing disparities in maintenance allowance and divorce grounds. The petitioner has filed two applications. The first petition calls for a similar rule for maintenance allowance and alumni, ie one time lump sum discharge allowance, and states that it should not come in the way of religion and gender discrimination. The petition said that the Law Ministry should be directed to remove the disparities in the matter. A common ground should be set for maintenance allowance and it should be the same for all citizens irrespective of their religion, caste, sex and place of birth discrimination. The constitution talks of equality. Alimony and discharge allowance are the only means of living and should not be discriminated on the basis of gender and religion in deciding it. Hindus, Buddha, Sikhs and Jains are covered under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as well as the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. The Christian Indian Divorce Act is governed by 1869. While Parsis are governed by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. In the case of Muslims, maintenance allowance is fixed under the Muslim Women’s Act 1986.
Who has filed the petition
Lawyer and BJP leader Ashwani Upadhyay has filed this application in the Supreme Court. Advocates Pinky Anand and Meenakshi Arora, appearing for Upadhyay, argued the apex court. During the hearing of the case, Pinki Anand and Meenakshi Arora argued that there is a difference of religion in the Divorce and Alimony Allowance and this discrimination should be abolished. The Supreme Court abolished the provision of triple talaq at one time in the Saira Banu case. Arora said that it is the responsibility of the government to uphold the rights and dignity of the people under the Constitution. If any religious activity violates someone’s fundamental right, then it should be abolished. Muslim women are falling prey to discrimination in the Muslim community in terms of alimony. Then the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that the question is which practice should be implemented. How can you say which provision should be applied to all Hindus, Muslims or Christians.
Why mention the Uniform Civil Code?
Arora argued that the state has an obligation to protect women’s equality and prestige. Religion should not come in this. In the Shah Bano case in 1985, the court said that a uniform civil code can get rid of the beliefs of different religions. In the Sara Mudgal case in 1995, the apex court also remarked that there is a need for uniform civil law in the country. In 2003, the top court in the John Walhamton case drew attention to the issue, stating that this could be achieved under Article 44 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that on 13 September 2019, the Supreme Court had mentioned the Uniform Civil Code in the Jose Paulo case. However, the Central Government did not take any concrete step in this direction.
Whose court is hearing
The case has been heard in the court of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V Ramasubramanian.
So should personal law be abolished
When the case was heard in front of the bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde of the Supreme Court, the court said that you want Parnassal law to be abolished? You are not saying that, but whatever is said in this case is really like that. The Supreme Court said that how can we interfere in personal law. The plea to set a common law for divorce, alimony and discharge expenses will obviously raise many issues as they differ on the basis of religion.