People haven’t forgotten the advice given last year by Justice Katju of Supreme Court to husbands “Do what the wife tells you and never question her authority.” . Now another ‘sage’ advice comes the way of Indian husbands from another SC judge Deepak Verma.
However, one would expect more logic from an SC judge who says “restrictions on independence are like dividends”… it is difficult to fathom how is restriction on independence is a dividend in itself. It is more a tax than dividend.
Since the judge has talked in financial terms to explain marriage, let us try to understand a bit deeper what he has said. In financial terms, a dividend is paid on an investment. In this case, the SC judge’s statement implies without doubt that the dividend is being given by husband to wife. So far so good. So it means that the investment has been made by wife by marrying a man, and husband has to pay the dividend to wife on that investment. Herein matrimony is like a deposit with husband, and he pays dividend. He pays dividend by getting restricted in his independence. The assumption is he must be enjoying some deposit automatically made by matrimony. There is no thought being given that the so assumed matrimony deposit may be in negative balance than positive.
Read my maintenance book (DV and CrPC 125) if you want to save HARD EARNED money. Use coupon code MenToo to get 52% discount and help it win Sales Contest to promote #MenToo awareness. (Kindle eBook version) (Print Paperback version)
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online)(PDF book)
Does it make any sense? Does the wife not have to pay any dividend to husband? The deposit is made one way, from wife to husband, not the other way round! Besides, where does the Hindu Marriage Act say about any legal position, that wife has done a lifetime favour on husband by marrying him? She can only claim maintenance etc as per the laws. But it seems more like that the judges have decided to take a particular position on law, and since they cannot come up with a good enough logical reason, they will indulge in making some populous statements from their ‘temple of justice’, hoping that the sheeple will take it with their heads bowed in awe and wonder at the authority that flows from the mouth of a Supreme Court judge!
NEW DELHI: Married men should forget about their freedom after they tie the nuptial knot as restrictions on their independence are like “dividends” they have to pay for matrimony, the Supreme Court said on Thursday in a divorce suit.
“Whenever a person is married, there is no question of independence,” Justice Deepak Verma said, hearing a divorce suit between Colonel Ajit Sharma (name changed) and his estranged wife and software professional Seema Sharma (name changed).
By making the observations, the court revisited the remarks of the vacation bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Verma of 2009 wherein it had said: “Do what the wife tells you and never question her authority.”
Justice Katju had said: “If men want to rule their life then they should always be on the right side of their wife. Otherwise, a defiant husband’s life would be ruled by others.”
He said that if the “wife says turn right, turn right and if she says turn left, then turn left”. On Thursday, the observation about husbands surrendering their independence came when the court was told that Seema had wished “happy Independence Day” to her husband when both of them filed a divorce suit by mutual consent.
The bench of Justice Verma and Justice K S Radhakrishnan was hearing an appeal filed by Ajit seeking divorce from his wife. They have a 14-year-old daughter Priyanka (name changed) studying at a boarding school in Dehradun.
Initially, the court said: “We are not made to break up marriages.” Thereafter, the court counselled the couple to go for reconciliation. The two were told by the court that for them, the welfare and the future of their child should be the top priority.
However, soon realising that the couple could not live peacefully under one roof, the court worked out a package that could mitigate the difficulties of the mother who was to bring up Priyanka after separation.
The court asked Ajit to suggest a package that he was willing to offer his estranged wife so that she could bear the expenses of bringing up their daughter. The court said that the package should factor in inflation, price rise and the cost of child’s education, her marriage and other needs. It gave Ajit time to think over it.
When SC resumed hearing, Seema was told that besides Ajit bearing entire expenses of Priyanka’s education till senior secondary, he would pay her Rs 4 lakh and give a 250 square metre plot in Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh.
Ajit said she could dispose the house to mop up more money. The package was in addition to the Rs 1.50 lakh that has already been given to Seema by him. An insurance policy of Rs 5 lakh in the name of their daughter has also been given to her.
After a second adjournment, Seema told SC that she wanted a plot of land in Delhi or Gurgaon and demanded an arrangement for their daughter’s education after school.