In one of the most sadist judgements against male rights, the Indian Supreme Court has opined that husbands should provide not only of his divorced wife’s medical expenses, but even provide her a house of equal value to the one he lives in!

This new ruling is as startling as it is UNETHICAL in this age of INCREASING divorces, for two reasons :
Firstly WOMEN are known to initiate divorce in more than 70% of the cases in the USA [1].
And second, combined now with the TEMPTATION of living a grand life post divorce, the wife’s responsibility for happiness within the marriage will be diminished further. Womens groups will definitely celebrate this bonanza, and misuse this, as in western nations, as a further ENCOURAGEMENT to divorce.

This ruling, will encourage MORE women to seek divorce, and will make more men wary of marriage ( and increasing risk of divorce ) in the future.

Coming just after the Men’s Day on the 19th, this ruling might harass more men in the future, due to increasing divorce rates. The male now has to earn for the sake of a woman who probably HATES him more than anyone else in the world! This paradox seems to have escaped the inventors of the concept of ‘alimony’ though!

The ORIGIN of alimony can be traced back to the ecclesiastical courts in England,[2] at a time when ‘DOWRY’ was in practice. “Because the husband was the property owner, and the wife depended upon him to provide for her sustenance, the English ecclesiastical courts, consistently ruled that the husband had the duty to provide for the wife after divorce. Even though the courts in America continued that tradition, there were some critical distinctions between American society and society in England. England, at that time, only granted divorces “a mensa et thoro,” while the American courts granted absolute divorces.”

The first reported LEGAL case of alimony in Nevada involved a wife, in a divorce action in the late 19th century, who petitioned the court for alimony pendente lite. This award at that time was considered money for attorney’s fees. One year later, in 1867, the court expanded the concept of alimony pendente lite to assist the wife with travel expenses of witnesses. As the years went by the Nevada Supreme Court opinions reflected what the court, at that time, believed to be the purpose of alimony. As one reads the court opinions, it is apparent that the purpose changed from time to time and those changes reflected society.The first recorded alimony was as recently as in 1867 in evada. More recently some awards have been unbelievably large.

“No compensation” divorce is more gender neutral, and does NOT favour the break-up of marriages [4].

The judiciary however, likes to involve itself in kitchen politics, since this is a big source of revenue for itself. But putting further pressure on men to remain in the marriage through anti-male laws ( IPC 498a, DV, etc.), while encouraging women to leave it, is immoral. One of men’s rights primary concerns, is about the practice of alimony being exploited by feminist authors for financial gain [5]

Misandry has itself been redefined by this complete and despicable ruling, negating men’s sensitivities and human rights. The awareness of the dangers of marriage must be brought about, to the young men of marriageable age.

Wake Up, Males! Wake Up!


  1. On face of it in Indian context IT IS NOT. Being said that it is un fortunate it is be ing used to terrorise the male members. here judiciary can play important role by deciding the cases on merit. but at magistrate level it is the most illitrate lot. they ony consider two things 1) marriage is there or not & 2) Spouse is working or not.
    What they should also consider is circumstances of divorce, & Husbands other dependents & responsibilities.

  2. The Indian judiciary is full of men looking for free s**. There are so many controversies happening all over. The latest being the Dinakaran case and supreme court’s RTI stand. What can be expected from it? On the other hand, the Indian media is feminised and hen-pecked. The editors are no less. They are corrupt to the core! They are paid to terrorise men and spread misandry! HELL WITH THE IT!


  4. If Hon’ble Supreme Court is favouring females, Boys must avoid marriage. BRAVO, BOYS, SINGLE IS BLESSEDNESS ! NO MARRIAGE IN INDIA.

  5. If Hon’ble Supreme Court is favouring females, Boys must avoid marriage. BRAVO, BOYS, SINGLE IS BLESSEDNESS ! NO MARRIAGE IN INDIA. THE MALADY IS TOO TOO DEEP.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *