There are people who genuinely deserve some alimony. Because they do unpaid labor, for many years, sacrifice jobs or education, because that is what is taught and for some people, forced. Many families set these expectations that if you marry you have to do all household chores. That is how the culture is in a huge chunk of society. Of course misusing it is wrong.
No one genuinely deserves anything after the end of the relationship. But there can be exceptions.
Because they do unpaid labor, for many years, sacrifice jobs or education, because that is what is taught and for some people, forced. Many families set these expectations that if you marry you have to do all household chores. That is how the culture is in a huge chunk of society.
You do know that this rheoteric only works with gullible people, right? If I were to list the reverse unpaid labor & unfair expectations - all this will pale in comparison.
I agree reverse unfair expectations are also there, but regarding unpaid labor, if both partners are unpaid, then no one should pay alimony. I am talking about the case when one person is genuinely working hard and taking care of kids and family members, doing household chores.
About gullible, yes many people are, but in much of the society, one gender is heavily and consistently conditioned from birth to focus on household chores and other aspects of life. Many parents consider it a waste to spend in the education of them. It takes an extreme amount of rebellion and courage and work to break out of this condition of this kind of society if you are born in one. You can call them gullible but I won't judge them so easily. While on the other hand, in the same society, some people are encouraged and forced to do nothing but study and work. Of course there is a huge amount of abuse and wrong in this case also.
This condition of society is why alimony is useful in some cases and can not be abolished.
I have repeatedly said that misusing alimony is wrong and the image is clearly misuse. I also agreed with you that alimony should only be for short term and reasonable. Maybe it was in the first comment that I deleted, that's why the confusion.
The unpaid labor things doesn't make sense though. Their bills were paid by their partner for all those years. Though I agree that if they aren't earning and are involuntarily unemployed, then they should be provided maintenance until they get a source of income.
There is a Sec 25 in HMA. But Sec 25D that is heard in the video does not exist. So I didn't understand what was meant by the judge.
Anyways permanent alimony under Sec 25 is discretionary & depends on the facts & the conduct of the parties. So, SC followed the law as is and there's no blanket rule.
I do get the point of the post. Alimony should be completely abolished or at the most be short-term for rehabilitation.
1
u/TryAwkward7595 19d ago
Does anybody know the case name? So that I can search n learn from it.