Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Bangkok [<keyword id="19913659" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Thailand" source="keywords">Thailand</keyword>], August 14 (ANI): On Wednesday, August 14, Thailand's <keyword id="20010440" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Constitutional-Court" source="keywords">Constitutional Court</keyword> removed <keyword id="19911515" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Prime-Minister" source="keywords">Prime Minister</keyword> <keyword id="20041841" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Srettha-Thavisin" source="keywords">Srettha Thavisin</keyword> from office due to his appointment of a former lawyer who had served jail time, signalling potential further political instability and possible reconfiguration of the ruling coalition, reported Channel News Asia. Srettha, a real estate mogul, became the fourth Thai prime minister in the past 16 years to be ousted by the court, which found that he breached the constitution by choosing a minister who did not meet ethical standards. His dismissal, after less than a year in office, means that parliament will need to meet to select a new prime minister, raising the possibility of increased uncertainty in a country plagued by coups and judicial decisions that have repeatedly toppled governments and political parties over the past two decades. Just last week, the same court dissolved the anti-establishment Move Forward Party (MFP), a popular opposition group, ruling that its efforts to reform a law against insulting the monarchy threatened the constitutional monarchy. The MFP reformed under a new name on Friday, CNA reported. Srettha's Pheu Thai Party, along with its predecessors, has been at the centre of Thailand's political turmoil, with two of its administrations removed by coups in an ongoing conflict between the party's founders, the Shinawatra family, and their conservative and royalist military opponents. The court's ruling could disrupt a fragile peace between political heavyweight Thaksin Shinawatra and his conservative and military adversaries, which facilitated Shinawatra's return from 15 years in exile in 2023 and Srettha's ascent to the premiership on the same day. Srettha defended his appointment of former Shinawatra lawyer Pichit Chuenban, who was briefly imprisoned for contempt of court in 2008 over an alleged bribery attempt, arguing that it was legitimate. The bribery claim was never substantiated, and Pichit resigned in May, reported CNA. Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai is anticipated to serve as the interim prime minister. (ANI) SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/google-pixel-9-pro-fold-launched-in-india-at-172999-but-you-cant-get-your-hands-on-it-right-now/articleshow/112517193.cms" style="">Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold launched in India at ₹1,72,999, but you can’t get your hands on it right now</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/pixel-9-pixel-9-pro-and-pixel-9-pro-xl-launched-in-india-starting-at-79999/articleshow/112512198.cms" style="">Pixel 9, Pixel 9 Pro and Pixel 9 Pro XL launched in India starting at ₹79,999</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/ipo-scam-two-victims-from-hyderabad-lose-over-11crore-in-fake-ipo-scams/articleshow/112488051.cms">IPO scam – Two victims from Hyderabad lose over ₹11 crore in fake IPO scams</a>

Thai court removes PM Srettha over ethical breach in cabinet selection

Chief Justice of India (<keyword id="19946587" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cji" source="keywords">CJI</keyword>) DY Chandrachud on Saturday observed that it is "grave danger" to describe the <keyword id="19900770" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="court" source="keywords">court</keyword> as a "<keyword id="22227364" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="temple-of-justice" source="keywords">temple of justice</keyword> and equate <keyword id="20008218" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="judges" source="keywords">judges</keyword> with Gods" as the task of judges is to serve the public interest. Addressing a conference on Contemporary Judicial Developments in <keyword id="22227366" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kolkata-cji-chandrachud" source="keywords">Kolkata CJI Chandrachud</keyword> said that "<keyword id="22226984" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="constitutional-morality" source="keywords">constitutional morality</keyword>" reflects an institution's commitment of the Court system. "Too very often, when we are addressed as Honour or as Lordship or as Ladyship. There is a very grave danger when people say that the court is a temple of justice. There is a grave danger that we perceive ourselves as the deities in those temples," Chandrachud said. The CJI said that "he feels reticent when he is told that the court is the temple of justice because the temple postulates that the judges are in the position of a deity." "I would rather recast the role of the judge as a server of the people. And when you regard yourselves as people who are there to serve others, then you bring in the notion of compassion, of empathy, of judging but not being judgmental about others," the CJI said. He further emphasized on the word 'contemporary' and said that the word itself speaks about in the context of contemporary <keyword id="22227365" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="societal-challenges" source="keywords">societal challenges</keyword> which the judges face in the work they do. "This conference speaks on Contemporary Judicial Developments and strengthening justice through law and technology. The word 'contemporary' is very important because it does not speak about the work which we do in the abstract, but in the context of contemporary societal challenges which we as judges face in the work we do. We, therefore, look at the law and its intersection of technology from the perspective of the societal conditions in which those whom we serve exist in our societies because the true merit of our work lies in addressing challenges faced by those at whose feet we are intended to serve the common citizens of India," he said. He further said that the people exist in a federal structure that is marked by a great deal of <keyword id="20051946" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="diversity" source="keywords">diversity</keyword>. "I was born in Mumbai, belong to a small village located 60-70 kilometers away from Pune. The work as judges we do in Delhi is to realize the importance of preserving the diversity of India. So how do we then dwell on the constitutional of morality? At one level constitutional morality is founded in the permeable values. The values which the Constitution, Preamble sets out," he added. The CJI said that C onstitutional morality addresses itself in every component of society. "The Consitution is not merely a dialogue between the states and its citizens, or Union or the states, or States and States. It is a dialogue within and between the societies. The Consitution Morality itself addresses to every component of society," he said. He said that even while sentencing anyone in a criminal case, the judges do that with a sense of compassion, since at the end, a human being is being sentenced. "So these concepts of constitutional morality, which I think, are the key, not just for the judges of the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> or the High Court but also for the district judiciary itself, because the engagement of the common citizens begins first and foremost with the district judiciary," <keyword id="20026571" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="CJI-Chandrachud" source="keywords">CJI Chandrachud</keyword> said. He further stressed on the relevance of technology in the functioning of the judiciary and said that the language is the central barrier to accessing and understanding verdicts by common people. "Technology can provide us with some answers. Most judgments are written in English. Technology has enabled us to translate them. We are translating 51,000 judgments in other languages," CJI said.

"Grave danger": CJI Chandrachud on equating court with temple, judge with God

<ul class="summary-list"><li>With Trump's victory and upcoming GOP control of the Senate, the Supreme Court looms large.</li><li>Trump appointed a third of the current Supreme Court in just one term.</li></ul>During Donald Trump's first term as president, he appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, giving it a 6-3 conservative supermajority.His Supreme Court appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — later voted to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-decision-final-ruling-scotus-roe-v-wade-2022-6">overturn</a> Roe v. Wade, which for nearly 50 years had afforded women a constitutional right to an abortion.With Trump having <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-wins-presidential-election-race-2024-11">won a second term</a> in office, he now has the potential to further shape the court in ways that no other president has done in modern times.<h2 id="52e7d3b8-38b3-4103-addf-05a14a7d9c87">Trump's second term gives Thomas and Alito a chance to retire</h2><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-win-senate-election-majority-election-2024-11">Republicans won a majority in the US Senate</a> alongside Trump's victory, which means that they'll be working in tandem should a vacancy arise on the court in Trump's second term.Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, 76, and Samuel Alito, 74, are two of the most stalwart conservatives on the Supreme Court. And while there's always a chance that a justice can step down from their post, both Thomas and Alito have been institutions on the court for years.Thomas was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush and has served on the body since 1991. Meanwhile, Alito was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush and took his seat on the court in 2006.There's no indication that either man is retiring from the bench. But Republicans will be in the driver's seat to make an appointment should either man step down over the next four years.Peter Loge, an associate professor and the director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, told Business Insider that Thomas is a figure who might step down."If I'm Clarence Thomas, I'm thinking now is a good time to retire," he said. "He's been on the court for a long time. His legacy is frankly mixed at this point between his wife's involvement with the insurrection in 2020 and his ongoing ethics scandal."(Thomas has faced a wave of criticism after <a target="_blank" href="https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow">ProPublica in April 2023 published</a> a report that detailed how he had taken luxury vacations funded by the billionaire mega donor Harlan Crow — and had not disclosed the trips.)<h2 id="e08ad357-0202-444a-9550-87693e9d2b8c">Or the court's makeup could stay the same</h2>While Trump will surely want to make another Supreme Court appointment, his ambitions may not necessarily align with the feelings of the justices themselves.<div type="image" title="Clarence Thomas" height="1080" width="1920" msid="115031465" hostid="261" sizebytes="62842"></div>Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, told BI that it's far from a given that any particular judge — even one with a like-minded political ideology — will step down because of Trump's election."I think they're independent-minded and they're not just going to resign because of Trump," he said. "They like what they're doing."Tobias also noted that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/election-results-trump-harris-presidential-election-2024-11">the extent</a> of the GOP's Senate majority — which is still up in the air — could make a big difference in what kind of jurist could actually win confirmation."Best-case scenario it may be 55-45 but more like 52-48 or something like that," he said of the eventual Republican Senate makeup. "So they're not going to be able to do everything they want, and there are people like Lindsey Graham and [Susan] Collins and [Lisa] Murkowski who may not go along on someone that's too crazy."<h2 id="b2c291bb-c313-447a-9514-9937c508fb69">Sweeping reforms won't occur</h2>Many top Democrats have long eyed changes to the Supreme Court, whether it be expansion or some sort of ethics reform.Biden this year laid out a plan to institute a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-supreme-court-has-lost-its-legitimacy-2024-10">binding code of conduct</a> for the court and create 18-year term limits for justices. He also wanted to see lawmakers pass a constitutional amendment that would limit presidential immunity.But with Trump soon to be back in the White House and a Republican-led Senate on the way, those plans are on ice indefinitely.The GOP sees the current composition of the court as the fruit of decades of work to ensure a conservative tilt. Leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky over the years have criticized Democratic attempts to reform the court/McConnell played a leading role in blocking the 2016 nomination of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-confirms-merrick-garland-attorney-general-2021-2">Merrick Garland</a> — now the US Attorney General — to the Supreme Court. At the time, the Kentuckian was the Senate's majority leader, and a fierce opponent of then-Democratic President Barack Obama.During a Wednesday press conference in Washington, McConnell reveled in Republicans flipping the Senate."One of the most gratifying results of the Senate becoming Republican: the filibuster will stand, there won't be any new states admitted that will benefit the other side," he said. "And we'll quit beating up the Supreme Court."

What Trump's victory means for the Supreme Court

In a recent <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> decision, Justice J.B. Pardiwala raised a red flag regarding <keyword id="23574724" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Section-6A" source="keywords">Section 6A</keyword> of the <keyword id="20932920" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Citizenship-Act" source="keywords">Citizenship Act</keyword> of 1955, a provision that grants citizenship to immigrants who entered <keyword id="19911206" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="assam" source="keywords">Assam</keyword> between 1966 and 1971. While the majority ruling upheld Section 6A as constitutional, <keyword id="23584391" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Pardiwala" source="keywords">Justice Pardiwala</keyword>’s dissenting opinion suggests that the provision is both arbitrary and prone to abuse. Here’s what you need to know: <h2>What is Section 6A?</h2>Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was introduced in 1985, following the <keyword id="20000897" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Assam-Accord" source="keywords">Assam Accord</keyword>, a historic agreement aimed at addressing the concerns of <keyword id="19959299" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="illegal-immigration" source="keywords">illegal immigration</keyword> in Assam. Under this section, people who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, are eligible for citizenship if they meet certain residency requirements. <h2>Why does Justice Pardiwala think Section 6A is unconstitutional?</h2>Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A is problematic because of its “open-ended nature,” which lacks a clear deadline for identifying and deporting illegal immigrants. He emphasised that the provision makes it easier for individuals to exploit the system using forged documents. “The open-ended nature of Section 6A has, with the passage of time, become more prone to abuse due to the advent of forged documents,” he wrote, adding that such documents often provide false dates of entry or inaccurate family histories. Justice Pardiwala argued that Section 6A has become “arbitrary and constitutionally invalid” over time. He believes the lack of a specific timeline for detecting immigrants allows for prolonged misuse, as it gives people an indefinite period to remain in Assam and potentially establish citizenship claims based on falsified information. He further explained that government records deteriorate over time, making it harder to verify or disprove these claims accurately. <h2>What did the majority ruling say?</h2>In contrast to Justice Pardiwala’s dissent, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld Section 6A. The court ruled that the Assam Accord was intended as a political solution, and the section remains a valid legal mechanism to address Assam’s historical challenges with illegal immigration. This decision was celebrated by the All Assam Students Union (<keyword id="20938945" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="AASU" source="keywords">AASU</keyword>), who consider the verdict a “historic” validation of the Assam Accord’s original intent. Matiur Rahman, a former AASU leader and petitioner in the case, expressed disappointment with the verdict, calling it “unfortunate.” Rahman, who has long advocated for using 1951 rather than 1971 as the cut-off year for citizenship eligibility, argued that the ruling jeopardizes the rights of Assam’s indigenous population. “You can’t make Assam a dumping ground for illegal immigrants,” he remarked, suggesting that his organisation may continue to explore legal options to challenge the decision. Justice Pardiwala’s dissent sheds light on ongoing concerns about immigration laws and their long-term effects on local communities in Assam. While the majority ruling supports Section 6A, Pardiwala’s warning raises questions about the effectiveness and fairness of India’s approach to citizenship, as well as the broader implications for Assam’s demographic and political landscape. (With inputs from agencies)

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

In a landmark judgement, the <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court of India" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court of India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has broadened the definition of crimes under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court ruled that simply viewing <keyword id="20456028" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="child-pornography" source="keywords">child pornography</keyword> on the internet, without physically possessing or storing the material, is now a criminal offence under Section 15 of the <keyword id="19920672" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="POCSO-Act" source="keywords">POCSO Act</keyword> and provisions of the <keyword id="19930099" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="information-technology" source="keywords">Information Technology</keyword> (IT) Act. This ruling significantly expands the scope of the law to address the evolving challenges posed by digital platforms. <h2>A wider net</h2>In its ruling, a bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala stated, "Any act of viewing, distributing, or displaying child pornographic material by a person over the internet without any actual or physical possession or storage of such material in any device or in any form or manner would also amount to 'possession' in terms of Section 15 of POCSO Act." This interpretation effectively settled conflicting verdicts from various high courts, notably overturning a Madras High Court decision that had quashed a POCSO case against an individual who had viewed child pornography but had not circulated it. The Supreme Court, in agreeing with senior advocate H.S. Phoolka's arguments, deemed the earlier judgement "egregiously erroneous." <h2>Crimes categorised</h2>In a further clarification, the Supreme Court divided crimes related to child pornography under Section 15 of the POCSO Act into three distinct categories. The decision emphasised that law enforcement and courts must carefully assess each case to determine the specific category under which an offence falls. One critical insight from the judgement is that an offender cannot escape prosecution by simply deleting illegal content before an FIR is registered. The bench declared, "We clarify that there is no requirement under Section 15 of POCSO Act that ‘storage’ or ‘possession’ must continue to exist at the time of initiation of the criminal proceeding, and no such requirement can be read into the said provision." <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113417654" title="“Learned no lessons from Nirbhaya case”: Madhya Pradesh High Court criticises lenient treatment of crime-accused juvies in India" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>This means that even if an individual deletes the material before the authorities take action, they may still face <keyword id="20554971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="legal-consequences" source="keywords">legal consequences</keyword> based on the mere act of viewing or temporary possession. <h2><keyword id="23293250" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="automatic-downloads" source="keywords">Automatic downloads</keyword></h2>Acknowledging the complexities of <keyword id="20573374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="digital-media" source="keywords">digital media</keyword>, the Supreme Court recognised that certain child pornographic content might be automatically downloaded onto devices without the user’s knowledge. To address this, the court created a safeguard for those unaware of the offensive material stored on their devices. If a person discovers such material on their device through automatic downloads, they will not be prosecuted if they take immediate steps to delete it and report it to the authorities. However, the onus is on the device owner to act swiftly. Failure to delete or report the offensive material after becoming aware of it would constitute an offence under the law. To avoid the automatic downloading of problematic material, there are several proactive measures you can take. First, adjust your browser settings to disable automatic downloads and pop-ups, ensuring you have to approve any file before it is downloaded to your device. Regularly update your web browser and security software to benefit from the latest protections against malicious websites. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113146443" title="Karnataka HC rejects school teacher&amp;#39;s plea to quash POCSO case over filming of girl students" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>Additionally, be cautious about the sites you visit, particularly those that seem suspicious or unfamiliar; stick to well-known, reputable sources. Additionally, consider using ad blockers or content filters that can prevent potentially harmful content from loading. Always be mindful of any unsolicited links in emails or messages, as these can lead to automatic downloads of unwanted material. Lastly, routinely monitor your device for any unfamiliar files and promptly delete anything that looks suspicious to minimise your risk of unknowingly storing problematic content. <h2>What this means for the future</h2>This judgement sends a clear message: India is taking a zero-tolerance approach toward child pornography in all its forms, whether stored, distributed, or merely viewed. The ruling adapts the legal framework to modern challenges, ensuring that perpetrators can no longer hide behind technicalities such as the absence of physical possession. The Supreme Court’s interpretation also places a burden on individuals to exercise responsibility in the digital world. Anyone who stumbles upon child pornography, whether intentionally or accidentally, must take swift action to avoid legal consequences. (With inputs from agencies)

You can now be prosecuted for unknowingly “auto-downloading” child porn. Here’re some safe browsing habits

<keyword id="19903807" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Elon-Musk" source="keywords">Elon Musk</keyword>'s satellite internet service, <keyword id="20034452" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Starlink" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Starlink" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Starlink">Starlink</keyword>, has announced that it will block access to the billionaire's social media platform, <keyword id="19959117" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="X" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="X" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="X">X</keyword>, in <keyword id="19935367" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Brazil" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Brazil" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Brazil">Brazil</keyword> in compliance with a recent ruling by the country's <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword>. The decision comes after Brazil's top court ordered a nationwide ban on the platform. In a post on X on September 3, Starlink stated, "The Starlink team is doing everything possible to keep you connected. Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil." The company also noted that it is actively pursuing legal options to challenge the court's decision, which they argue violates the Brazilian constitution. The conflict began when Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the freezing of Starlink's financial transactions after Musk's company failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country. On September 2, all five judges of Brazil's Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ban on X, reinforcing the need for compliance with the nation's legal requirements. Starlink had initiated legal action to contest the order, calling it "illegal," but the court's decision to block access to X remains in effect. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his approval of the Supreme Court's ruling in an interview with CNN Brasil, stating that he was "satisfied" with the decision and that it sends a clear message about the rule of law. The situation escalated after Judge Moraes issued a directive on August 29, giving Musk 24 hours to appoint a legal representative for X in Brazil or face the suspension of the platform across the country. Starlink's compliance with the court's order to block access to X underscores the ongoing legal and regulatory challenges Musk's companies face in Brazil.

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

The <keyword id="19946148" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Karnataka-High-Court" source="keywords">Karnataka High Court</keyword> recently dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking Rs 6 lakhs in monthly <keyword id="20538992" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="alimony" source="keywords">alimony</keyword>, citing the lack of reasonable justification for the requested amount. <keyword id="22894144" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Lalitha-Kanneganti" source="keywords">Justice Lalitha Kanneganti</keyword>, presiding over the case, found the petitioner's claim to be excessive and asked for more concrete figures regarding her actual expenses. The appeal, presented by Advocate Akarsh Kanade on behalf of the petitioner, sought the large sum to cover what was described as her “basic needs,” which included items such as bangles, chains, sandals, and watches. The court questioned whether such expenses constituted "basic needs" and noted that the petitioner did not have any dependents or children. <div type="twitter" handle="DeepikaBhardwaj" handlename="DeepikaBhardwaj" favoritecount="0" retweetcount="0" id="1826237815962907135"></div>According to the Bar and Bench, the court said that she has no responsibility for any other family member or children, “Does anybody spend this much? A single lady for herself?” During the hearing, the petitioner referenced her ex-husband’s preference for branded clothing, such as Calvin Klein t-shirts costing around Rs 10,000, arguing that she should be entitled to similar living standards. Additionally, she cited health concerns, including knee joint pain and fever, which she attributed to negligence during the marriage. Further, Judge Lalitha Kanneganti also refused to entertain the request, saying, “If she wants to spend, let her earn,” TOI reported. <h2>But how much alimony is considered fair in India?</h2>In India, alimony, also referred to as <keyword id="20027249" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="maintenance" source="keywords">maintenance</keyword>, is a key aspect of <keyword id="19911325" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="divorce" source="keywords">divorce</keyword> proceedings. This <keyword id="19972877" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="financial-support" source="keywords">financial support</keyword> is provided by one spouse to another, irrespective of the divorce grounds. The determination of alimony involves complex legal and financial assessments, taking into account factors such as the earning capacity of both spouses, their financial needs, the length of the marriage, and the lifestyle maintained during the marriage. The <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-of-india" source="keywords">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has set a general benchmark for monthly alimony, where the husband may be required to pay 25% of his net salary to his estranged wife. While this guideline applies to monthly payouts, no specific rule exists for lump-sum settlements, though they typically range from one-fifth to one-third of the spouse's net worth. The calculation of alimony depends on various factors, such as: <ul><li>Monthly incomes of both spouses</li><li>Educational background and employment prospects</li><li>Duration of the marriage</li><li>Number of children and child custody arrangements</li><li>Husband's income, liabilities, and lifestyle</li><li>Reasonable needs and financial independence of the wife</li></ul>In case of the Karnataka woman, the court expressed its expectation that more reasonable figures be provided to support her request. "If you want an order from the court, I want actual figures, not these lakhs of figures," said Justice Kanneganti. The judge also stated that the court is not a place for bargaining and advised the petitioner to be realistic in her demands. While the petitioner’s counsel attempted to lower the alimony request, the court maintained that without a rational basis for the amount, the application could not be entertained. Justice Kanneganti emphasised that the appeal would be dismissed if a more reasonable claim was not presented. In its final remarks, the court suggested that the appeal could be denied solely on the grounds of being unreasonable, stressing the importance of presenting justified and fact-based requests in legal proceedings. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="112689204" title="Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck reportedly didn&amp;#39;t sign a prenup. Here are the assets they may have to split 50/50 in their divorce settlement." mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

Defending its 2019 law criminalising <keyword id="20415107" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="triple-talaq" source="keywords">triple talaq</keyword>, the Centre has told the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> that the practice is "fatal" for the social institution of <keyword id="19896575" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="marriage" source="keywords">marriage</keyword>. In an affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the law, the Union of India said despite the top court setting aside the practice in 2017, it has "not worked as a sufficient deterrent in bringing down the number of divorces by this practice" among the members of the community. "It is submitted that Parliament in its wisdom has enacted the impugned Act to protect the rights of married <keyword id="19943278" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Muslim-women" source="keywords">Muslim women</keyword> who are being divorced by triple talaq. "The impugned Act helps in ensuring the larger constitutional goals of <keyword id="20809677" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="gender-justice" source="keywords">gender justice</keyword> and <keyword id="20250318" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="gender-equality" source="keywords">gender equality</keyword> of married Muslim women and helps subserve their fundamental rights of non-discrimination and empowerment," the affidavit said. On 22 August 2017, the <keyword id="19936355" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="apex-court" source="keywords">apex court</keyword> had declared instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddah) unconstitutional. On August 23, 2019, the top court agreed to examine the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Violation of the law entails imprisonment of up to three years. Two Muslim organisations -- <keyword id="22278513" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind">Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind</keyword> and Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema -- have urged the court to declare the law "unconstitutional". Jamiat claimed in its petition that "criminalising a mode of <keyword id="19911325" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="divorce" source="keywords">divorce</keyword> in one particular religion while keeping the subject of marriage and divorce in other religions only within the purview of civil law, leads to discrimination, which is not in conformity with the mandate of Article 15".

You Searched For "Constitutional Court" and got 8 results

Thai court removes PM Srettha over ethical breach in cabinet selection

ANI

"Grave danger": CJI Chandrachud on equating court with temple, judge with God

ANI

What Trump's victory means for the Supreme Court

John L. Dorman

India’s Citizenship Act: What you need to know about Justice Pardiwala’s warning on Section 6A for Assam citizenship

BI India Bureau

You can now be prosecuted for unknowingly “auto-downloading” child porn. Here’re some safe browsing habits

BI India Bureau

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

BI India Bureau

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

BI India Bureau

Centre defends 2019 law on triple talaq in SC, says practice 'fatal' for marriage

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides