A person earning 50,000, and bearing the responsibility of a few family members may not be able to save much for repaying a home loan; on the other hand a person earning 30,000, and living with his/her parents (without himself paying lodging rent) with no major expenditure other than travel and luxury, can still afford to set aside a part of his/her regular income to repayment of home loan. A rough calculation also makes it easier to plan your expenses well, and think about the long term.You need to be very careful about not defaulting on any payments; work upon your transactions diligently, credit score plays an important role in terms of helping you get a loan. In such circumstances, consolidation of loans is a good option. Any salaried person has to first take account of his total income, basic monthly expenses, and the amount of installments one can afford. Always plan to save some money every few years or scout for additional income options when you apply for a home loan

　　The landmark judgement will have a bearing on several aspects of law, lifestyle and governance, say experts.(Vishav can be contacted at  Ians feed.Noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who is party to the case, said that any law which restricts fundamental right will have to be examined on the touchstone of the judgement.

　　This judgement will be used as a guideline to decide on Aadhaar and I think in that sense, even if they approve of Aadhaar, there is the question of whether you should make it compulsory.He says that according to him, Section 377 will have to be revisited as sexual orientation is inherent to the right to privacy, Luthra told IANS.What will ultimately happen, I feel, is that it is likely to be upheld but not made compulsory, she said, adding that the government would also need to ensure that the data collected under the Aadhaar scheme is not misused. Luthra said that the governments Aadhaar scheme may also have to be revisited to be decided in light of the apex court decision.However, Constitution expert and former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha Subhash Kashyap said that one cannot generalise the impact of the judgement as each case has to be decided separately.K.She said that since the court has said it would hear the curative petition on the matter, chances are that Section 377 may be repealed.Cyber law expert advocate Prashant Mali said there could be issues regarding defining reasonable restrictions.

　　Even this judgement cannot and does not make it unlimited fundamental right. Restrictions and limitations can be placed on every fundamental right, he said. Kapoor said now that the Supreme Court has upheld privacy as a fundamental right incorporated within  Motor Journal Bearing Suppliers the parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution, any government policy, rule, regulation or law that interferes with an individuals privacy can be struck down.Kashyap said that there have been prior judgements holding privacy as a limited fundamental right.In the 547-page judgement, the bench observed that the balance between data regulation and individual privacy raises complex issues requiring delicate balances to be drawn between the legitimate concerns of the state on one hand and individual interest in the protection of privacy on the other