Message: Return type of CI_Session_null_driver::open($save_path, $name) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::open(string $path, string $name): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_null_driver::close() should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::close(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_null_driver::read($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::read(string $id): string|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_null_driver::write($session_id, $session_data) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::write(string $id, string $data): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_null_driver::destroy($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::destroy(string $id): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_null_driver::gc($maxlifetime) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::gc(int $max_lifetime): int|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
NRIPage | Articles | Supreme Court denies maintenance to Working Wife holding same post as Husband | Get Opinions & View point. Dive Into Thought-Provoking Opinions & Insights - NRI Page
The Supreme Court of India recently denied a maintenance plea filed by a woman seeking financial support from her estranged husband. The court ruled that since both individuals were employed as Assistant Professors and earned comparable salaries, there was no valid ground for granting maintenance. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, cited Article 136 of the Constitution of India, stating that no case for interference was warranted.
The wife had approached the apex court after her maintenance plea was rejected by both the Madhya Pradesh High Court and a trial court. While her estranged husband claimed she earned Rs 60,000 per month, the wife argued that her husband earned approximately Rs 1 lakh per month. The court instructed both parties to submit their salary slips for the past year. Despite the financial disparity, the Supreme Court upheld the decision to deny maintenance, reinforcing that equal employment status and earning capacity should be considered in maintenance disputes.
This ruling is significant as it emphasizes financial independence and equal responsibility in cases where both partners are in stable employment with similar earnings.
