Live-in Relationships - Entitled to Maintenance????
The Supreme Court has, in a recent judgement, mentioned something to the effect that if a "Live-in Relationship" has been "on" for extended periods of time, the woman "live-in partner" in the relationship who "feels ditched" can file a suit for maintenance, and actually be entitled for the same.
All I can say, hoping that my comments here do not fall under the category of "Contempt of Court", is that I'm surprised.
If a person wants all the benefits of any kind of contract, he/she ought to accept the responsibilities of such a contract. Whether the contract is a legal contract or a social contract. Accordingly, you can't have a situation where an individual can want (and apparently hope to get) all the benefits of marriage, without accepting the responsibilities of a marriage. This dichotomy is just not on!
The other aspect is that the judgement apparently talks about "the woman" getting maintenance and not about "the person" getting maintenance. This is certainly a case of discrimination on grounds of a person's gender.
To say the least the whole thought process appears to be the view of a "bleeding heart". To say the least, I'm surprised.
Regards,
N
No comments:
Post a Comment