Women parasites

Recently while dealing with a case related with increasing the maintenance of a divorced woman, the Delhi High Court advised the woman to get a job and stop being a paradite on her husband's earnings.  The court has used an unusual term 'parasite' to describe a woman who does not have a job. The question is whether a woman, who is a homemaker and does not have a professional career is a nobody? Are all her efforts at maintaining the house and taking care of the children and sometimes also her inlaws and extended family immaterial just because she does not gonout to earn? Many a times, a woman is forced to leave her job after marriage and after staying at home for ten or fifteen years is no longer wualified enough to enter the job market. If a woman has soent years of her life taking care of her husband and his house, doesnt she deserve to get maintenance if the martiage has had an unfortunate end. If a divorced woman is called a parasite, then even a widow can be called one anf then ultimately all homemakers will be declared parasites while their hours of unpaid labor will be ignored. In a society which still doesn't treat the women as equal to men, which still doesn't give equal pay for equal work, which still doesn't promote women, calling a woman a parasite is a slap on the face of all those who talk about gender justice.
While getting maintenance is not an absolute right of a wife and even husbands can get maintenance from their higher earning wives, it is required that the same provision is not misused and deserving women be forced on the street. When husbands are known to leave their jobs and declare bankruptcy in order to avoid giving maintenance to their estranged wives, te courts should be careful in awarding her what is due and courts should be extra careful in choosing the words they use.

Food and food habits part of right to life

The Allahabad High Court while hearing a petition against the beef ban and the closing down of illegal slaughterhouses ruled that food and food habits and the means of dispersing with them are part of rught to life and livelihood. The court ruled that putting a complete ban would interfere with an individual's private life if he desires to consume a particular food item. A complete ban impised by the state government amounts to the violation of Articles 19 and 21 and interfere with the rights of life and livelihood.
The court ordered the state government to formulate rules for regulating slaughterhouses and the inaction of previous governments is no excuse for putting a complete ban in place. The government is required to make rules for licensing the slaughterhouses and restaurants but it cannot completely ban the same. The court ruled that the food habits have evolved in the state based on its diversity and any order effecting themshould be in accordance with the secular structure of the constitution.
The government has no right to dictate what a person can or cannot eat. Food is a personal choice and interfering with it amounts to the violation of the right to privacy. Food is part of the right to life and selling it is part of right to livelihood. The state government cannot put a complete ban and infringe the two rights.