On settlements

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring divorced men to pay maintenance to their ex-wives in certain cases has often invited controversy. In 1985,the Supreme Court interpreted the section to order a Muslim man to pay maintenance for his divorced wife,Shah Bano. Responding to religious conservatives who saw this as a slight to their faith,the Central government amended Section 125,in effect overruling the SC verdict. Twenty four years later,another amendment to Section 125 is being debated. But this time,its a supposedly progressive cause. The Maharashtra government has proposed that the Centre amend Section 125,and expand the definition of wife to include a woman living with a man for a reasonably long period.

The expanded definition is intended to provide legal benefits for women whom married men live with,but are then cast aside with no entitlements. In a society that treats women shabbily,Maharashtras proposals are well-intentioned; they could perhaps even be effective. But there are evidentiary issues that must be examined with care. Our already creaky justice delivery mechanism will be asked to determine what living in means,and how long reasonably long is. In the absence of a contract (marriage or any other),determining legal status could be reduced to the testimony of neighbours and details of electricity payments. And with little proof to go by,there might be false allegations and motivated law suits.

A public debate on the subject of entitlements in civil unions is certainly due. And in a country in which the law is used as a means of hastening social reform,it must be also asked whether legislation should be framed in more gender neutral terms than the current amendment seems to be.