Probably she meant the expenses indicated relate to expenses likely to be incurred.
Seems media is sensatiolising the issue.
New Delhi, Dec 29: As someone intelligent once said, ‘A woman is a woman’s worst enemy’. The fact was proved by none other than Supreme Court judge Gyan Sudha Mishra. The judge, the only woman judge in the SC has a unique distinction in her favour. She has listed the marriage of her two daughters in the “liabilities” column.
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/12/29/sc-judge-gyan-sudha-mishra-daughters-liability.html
Yes, I think all of us agree that all children, whether male or female, are real assets and should be cherished and nurtured in the same way.
True.
Liability in the sense used would only mean a ‘financial obligation’ and nothing else. I’m sure, if she had a son, she would have used the same term with regard to his likely marriage expenses.
Sorry for the delay in replying.
In India, the term liability is used for Female children on the assumption the male child will take care of the parents when they are old.
Girls, on the other hand go away once they are married.
Hence the concept.
But I know a number of instances girls take care of their parents after getting married.
Never would a Family use the term for a male child.
Differentiating among children is ridiculous and he/she is not a parent if they expect their children to take care of them as a quid pro quo.