Art

Pardon me for paraphrasing a well-known maxim- ‘rex non potest peccare’ or ‘the King can do no wrong’ to suit the context, but allow me to elaborate.

‘Sovereign immunity’ is a legal doctrine by which the King/ Crown/ President/ State cannot commit a legal wrong, i.e. he/it is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. The immunity has further been extended to:

Immunity from suit
Immunity from enforcement
It means the state is not only immune from any legal claim laid upon it, but also that if a suit is brought in any other jurisdiction and won by a litigant, the judgment cannot be enforced.

Various commentators have used this fascinating maxim to mean different things. This website defines the maxim, as per the legal system of each country.

But I digress. The reason I drag the ‘Missus’ into the maxim is fairly simple. To Her, you see, the humble husband and his relatives are mere subjects, who must bow down and obey the whims of Her Highness. Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying this because I work for men harassed by the law of this land. The law, however lopsided, must be adhered to. If filing a case is easier for women because of the sheer weight of the past, I just tell men to keep up the unfair fight, to roll with the punches, to not throw the towel midway, to reclaim the lost ground. Men battle at great cost to get visitation for kids, deny maintenance when the wife does not deserve it, get Anticipatory Bail and to get acquitted in crimes which they had never committed.

On the other hand, men cannot prosecute the ‘Missus’ even when she has misused the law. That is the law of the land. You and I can’t prosecute someone for perjury. It needs not only the court’s permission but also requires the court to show that the said prosecution is ‘expedient in the interest of justice’. Even if the court finds out after years that the maintenance awarded to the wife was unjust, there is no mechanism to retrieve the money paid as interim to the wife. And of course, the courts are too liberal to quash the heinous crime like ‘Dowry’ on a settlement. I haven’t heard a whisper against such practise by any feminist, who cry foul that lakhs of women are burnt every year for ‘Dowry’.

Compounding of offences is clearly laid down under section 320 CrPC. However, courts have taken Judical Activism to such extent that they are “Quashing” grave offences like molestation and attempt to rape charges by a wife towards the Father in law/Uncle in law/Brother in law without batting an eye on a settlement and in the interest of justice. Is filing molestation and then withdrawing it, by seeking a shield of legality over extortion justified in law? Of course, one would term it as extortion, if a man did the same to another man. But a woman and especially the wife…. Ahh! Missus can do no wrong.

The laws made for citizens are clear. There cannot be any ambiguity in law, because, if it were so, people would escape the clutches of law easily. In my opinion, this week, Hon’ble Supreme Court has done the same. Creating ambiguity in the well-settled law about Maintenance/ Alimony to ex-wife at the time of divorce. The intent of the SC was of course not to amend the law. The settled law till date in the matrimonial offence was that “No person can be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong” and also that “at the time of deciding permanent maintenance, the court has to consider the conduct of the parties”. Translated, it means that the erring party has no right to maintenance/alimony or in simpler word, if A, being the wife, were to be found guilty of matrimonial wrong entitling her husband to seek divorce against her, she would lose her claim on alimony. Though, at varied times, some subsistence amount has been given to such women to save them from vagrancy, destitution or pushing them into immoral life (Reliance on AIR2013SC415 also AIR2013SC2176).

Though this week, Hon’ble Apex Court has gone against this basic tenant. In this widely publicized judg