A question has been raised before. In the current light of changed society and changed circumstances and several and ongoing attempts at amendement of this act, it is relevant to revisit this question-Are hindu marriages contracts? If not what is it? Is it necessary to treat them as contracts?
Hindu marraiges are performed in front of several hundreds of people (ususally).There are ususally witnesses. The mantras of sevn steps performed is an oath taken by bride and bridegroom towards each other. In other words each is stating a promise of what they would do in the union. It is also performed by not only in front of people as witnesses but also by invoking gods to be witnesses and to bless such unions. The broad contours of the mantras state every aspect of life and that the parties have responsibilities to each other.
Yet:
1) Law states that a divorcee continues to be the wife even after divorce and hence should be maintained by her husband! What is divorce then? Why is it not a clean cut separation -forever? It is true that an oath is taken that the marriage is valid till death do them apart. However the oath is not in isolation.It is based on fulfilment of other obligations as well.
2) In that scenario-when wife has breached and allowed to breach all her promises-why is the husband held to his?
3) In the era when HMA act was passed in 1955-women rarely ventured into jobs and earned themselves. Money is needed to support oneself. Prostitution was a profession to support oneself since women did not have careers/ jobs that they could get into. However all that has changed. Opportunities are equally available to both genders and both can and are having successful careers. Then the question is why women cannot be treated as individual who are capable of earning themselves and hence not needing to be supported by her husband?
I argue if a woman is capable-she should be assumed to earn and support herself. This is especially so since it is not acceptable if a man would refuse to earn if he has the capability to earn!
Such incapacity for a woman, so as to be not able to earn must be based on evidence.of disability. Voluntary incapacitation is not valid.
This is probably the crux of the issue.
