‘The Act proposes to impose this obligation on divorced woman’s father and her father’s relations, including collaterals. This provision would be so cumbersome in practice that the divorced woman’s claim for maintenance against her father and his relatives will have no meaning. It will not be practicable. It would result in naught.
It would be no more than an exercise in futility. If a divorced woman fails to get any maintenance from her father or father’s relatives, maintenance can be claimed from wakfs. Apart from the impediment of law that wakfs funds can be employed for the purpose for which wakf is created, it would also prove illusory.
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
ADVERTISEMENTS:
A wakf can be charged (if at all it can be charged) with divorced wife’s obligation to maintain her when it has some surplus funds, and the wakf management can be so worked up as no surplus would ever be available for a divorced woman. Further, this provision will be violative of Article 30 of the Constitution. In the words of Danial Latifi (who argued the case of Shah Bano in the Supreme Court):
All in all the Bill as it stands is obnoxious to Islamic principles, derogatory to human rights, violative of the rights of women and children, and also of the rights of the minority community to establish and administer charitable and educational institutions of their choice. It may, if persisted in, involve the political leadership of the country as a whole in increasing difficulties and may fonder on the bedrock of our Constitution. The earlier it is withdrawn, the better for all concerned.