Single mothers have lost their Supreme Court challenge against the Government's £350-a-week benefit cap. Britain's highest court narrowly ruled by three judges to two that the benefit cap restricting welfare to the equivalent of a £35,000 a year salary was not unlawful. Two women forced into temporary accommodation after suffering domestic violence said the cap violated their human rights. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, pictured in Downing Street this morning, welcomed the Supreme Court ruling . They claimed the cap disproportionately hit women, especially those trying to escape violent partners. But the Supreme Court said the cap, introduce by the Coalition government to clamp down on spiralling welfare bills, was legally okay. The benefit cap limits the amount of benefits a household can receive to £500 a week for couples and £350 a week for households of a single adult. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said: 'I am delighted that the country's highest court has agreed with this Government and overwhelming public opinion that the benefit cap is right and fair.' He added: 'I am proud to say that it is one of the most significant reforms we've implemented over the past five years. 'A key part of the long-term economic plan, the benefit cap is encouraging people to change their behaviour and motivating them to find work.' The two lone parents went to the Supreme Court, along with a representative child from each family. Their lawyers argued that the cap unjustifiably discriminated against abuse victims, who are predominantly women, and failed to have regard to the best interests of the child. Lady Hale - one of the dissenting judges - ruled that the Government had failed to take proper account of 'the best interests of the children', as it was obliged to do under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child . They said the cap substantially reduces weekly income and puts the mothers at risk of losing their safe homes. The justices hearing the case included Supreme Court deputy president Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes. Lord Reed, giving the lead judgment, said he accepted that the cap was 'a proportionate means' of meeting legitimate Government aims, which include deficit reduction and incentivising parents to find work. He noted that the cap for households with children was equivalent to a gross annual salary of £35,000, which is higher than the earnings of half of the UK's working households. Although the short-term savings were a small proportion of the total welfare budget, they nevertheless contributed towards deficit reduction, and were also intended to change behaviour over the longer term. But Lady Hale - one of the dissenting judges - ruled that the Government had failed to take proper account of 'the best interests of the children', as it was obliged to do under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lady Hale said UNCRC was relevant even though it was not yet generally part of domestic law. She ruled that the cap deprived some children of provision for their basic needs, which could not be in their best interests. The cap's aim of incentivising parents to seek work discriminated against lone parents as they were the least able to do so, said Lady Hale.
Britain's top court narrowly ruled  that the Benefit Cap was not unlawful . Two women forced out of home by domestic violence said challenged cap . Claimed cap disproportionately hit women trying to escape violent partners .