grant her any alimony. The High Court pointed out that the woman was capable of earning per month but was choosing to remain unemployed, and denied any alimony to her. However, the court ordered the husband to pay towards child support. On 12 September 2013, the Karnataka High Court granted equal custody of a 12-year-old boy to both parents. The court ordered that the boy to remain with his mother from 1 July to 31 December of every year and to remain with his father from 1 January to 30 June, until the child reaches the age of maturity. Both the parents were also given visitations rights on Saturday and Sunday, when the child would be with the other parent. The child was also allowed to call or video chat with the other parent when in custody of one. The court also ordered both parents to bear the child's education and other expenses equally. Proposed laws Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 In 2010, a proposed amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act would allow courts to decide compensation to wife and children from the husband's inherited and inheritable property. The bill has provisions for "irretrievable breakdown" of marriage where both parties must have lived apart for three years before filing for divorce. The bill would also allow the wife to oppose the dissolution of a marriage if it would leave her in financial hardship. The SIFF protested against the 2010 amendment. According to Rajesh Vakharia, president of SIFF, this bill would encourage divorce and be costly to husbands, as they would have to part with their assets. He called the bill a regressive move, and stated that it jeopardizes the financial and social security of a man. He has pointed out that as most men marry after becoming financially secure, the possibility of losing their wealth and property would discourage men from marriage and feed the gynophobia in the society. Kumar V. Jaghirdar, founder and president of the Bangalore-based Children's Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP), said that alimony should be decided on the basis of how many years the couple were married, and argued that the law doesn't allow a husband to refute his wife's claims. He also argued that it is based on a flawed assumption that the children are always best cared for by their mother, and that it violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, right to