While granting divorce to a Karnataka based couple, the Supreme Court, the highest authority of the country, made some serious observations. Here is an open letter from a modern Indian woman who questions the statements made by the court.
"A Hindu son can divorce his wife for the cruelty of trying to pry him away from his 'pious obligation' to live with his aged parents and provide shelter to them. A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meager income."
First of all, cruelty means causing physical or mental harm to another, intentionally or not. If its cruelty to separate a son from his parents, aged or otherwise, why is it said to be a wife (daughter)’s duty to leave hers after her marriage? In urban India, boys and girls have been educated and brought up the same. Parents want their children to be successful and independent individuals, whether a girl or a boy. So doesn’t that mean that a daughter has the same “moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents”?
Why Beti Bachao Beti Padhao ? So now the question also arises as to why educate a girl, make her financially independent when she can’t even support her own parents when they need her. It’s not a very popular practice for a daughter to financially support her parents only because she now has responsibilities to her new home.