New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took exceptions for an order of the Bombay High Court, in which “illegitimate wife” and “loyal mistress” were used to describe a woman and said that it is for violation of her fundamental rights and Was wrong.
Overview of the use of such words was against the ethos and ideals of the Constitution, Justice Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and a full back (three judges) of Agstein George Maasih (three judges) on the “objectionable language” used by the Bombay High Court. noticed.
“Unfortunately, the Bombay High Court went to the extent of using the words ‘illegitimate wife’. Shocking, in paragraph 24, the High Court described such a wife as a ‘loyal mistress’,” said this.
The apex court stated that calling the woman, who was in a marriage, was declared zero, as a “illegitimate wife” was “very inappropriate” and influenced her dignity.
The bench specifically saw that the High Court did not use the same adjectives for the husbands of zero marriage.
Under Section 21 of the Constitution, the bench said, every person had a fundamental right to live a dignified life.
“Calling a woman a ‘illegitimate wife’ or ‘loyal mistress’ would be a violation of the fundamental rights of that woman under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Describing a woman using these words is against our ethos and ideals. Constitution, “This said.
The court said that no one can use such adjectives, while a woman mentioned a party for a zero marriage.
The apex court was hearing a reference in a case on conflicting views on the purpose of Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
While in Section 24 of the Act, maintenance pendant lights (suits pending) and related to the expenses of action, Section 25 is related to permanent alimony and maintenance.
“A husband or wife whose marriage has been declared zero under Section 11 of the 1955 Act, is entitled to search for permanent alimony or maintenance from another spouse by implementing Section 25 of the 1955 Act,” the bench by the bench Organized.
It said whether such relief of permanent alimony can be given or not will always depend on the facts of each case and the conduct of parties.
“The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary,” said this.
Even if a court came to a prima facie conclusion, the marriage between the parties was zero or zero, pending the final disposal of the proceedings under the Act, was not done before the court was maintained. Satisfied, the bench said.
When the court talked about deciding the prayer under Section 24, a court would always consider the conduct of the party as the grant of relief under it was “always discretionary”.
It directed the Apex Court Registry to complete the appeal before the bench suitable for the qualification decision.
,
