The law is expected to provide protection, and hence justice, to the weak in the society.  Every provision in the civil code should be evaluated only on this basis, and not what was done in the past or what the scriptures are supposed to say.  

There is (or was) a provision in the Hindu civil code that a man can take a second wife if the first wife, or the family of the first wife, does not object.  And there is (or was) a provision that the first wife (or the family) could also take the husband to court and get the marriage annulled.  I consider the first part of the provision does not provide justice, because there are cases where the first wife has expressed helplessness in taking the husband to the court.  She is weak in a social sense.

In Christianity there is (or was) a provision that a man can divorce his wife on the basis of the latter committing adultery.  But for the wife to divorce her husband has to prove an additional reason like cruelty to be able to divorce.

There are some supposed liberal Muslims say that the Koran says that the man can divorce his wife by saying talak thrice with a gap of one month, and that saying talak thrice at one time is not as per Islam.  The real test is whether this form is just for the woman.  (Incidentally the woman does not have the same facility, and has to go through an elaborate process to divorce the husband.)

There are no provisions in some religious code for adoption, which makes the position of the mother uncertain with respect to her children when her husband passes away.

Some supposed liberals say that they want gender just laws in all communities.  In a public meeting around 1995, I had asked one of these arch-liberals, Teesta Setalvad, whether these laws will be different for each community.  Shamelessly she said no – shameless because she got caught in her chicanery.  Yet such shamelessness continues event today, and it is the women in our society that continue to suffer.

One must, therefore, ask why the so-called liberals are perverting the whole debate on the subject.  One of them, Rajdeep Sardesai, asks if the Uniform Civil Code will help the BJP to get Muslim vote.  Some others are saying that UCC should be optional, without realising that an optional code is NOT uniform.  And the larger issue is who amongst the affected persons will choose the option, given the unequal position of the woman in such relations.

It may be in the interest of the clerics in the various religions to hold on to unjust provisions in their civil code.  But why are those who call themselves liberals not working actively to liberate the women and children who are adversely affected by the present codes.  For example, a liberal Muslim should be concerned if a woman relative of his/her is divorced unjustly through the process of a triple talak (either in one sitting or over two months) and is denied any right over the children from her marriage.