In India’s socio-legal landscape, alimony is a financial provision ordered by the court for the maintenance of a spouse after divorce. It has long been viewed as a tool of justice and support, particularly for economically dependent women. However, in recent years, a parallel discourse has emerged questioning whether alimony, in certain cases, becomes a form of financial burden or even a “reverse dowry” on the husband, especially when misused or unreasonably demanded. With changing gender roles, increased female participation in the workforce, and a growing recognition of men’s rights, Indian courts have begun to interpret alimony laws through a lens of reasonableness and equity, rather than gender-based assumptions.
Legal Framework of Alimony in India
Alimony in India is governed by various personal and secular laws:
- Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 which is now section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), provides a secular remedy for maintenance, applicable to all religions. It allows a wife (including divorced) who is unable to maintain herself to claim maintenance from her husband.
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under Sections 24 and 25 allows both spouses (husband or wife) to seek interim and permanent alimony, respectively.
- Special Marriage Act, 1954 also provides similar provisions under Sections 36 and 37.
These laws emphasize need-based support, aiming to ensure that a financially weaker spouse is not left destitute after separation. However, there is no fixed formula for the quantum of alimony, and courts decide based on income, assets, standard of living, duration of marriage, and conduct of both parties.
Is Alimony a “Reverse Dowry”?
Dowry has been historically condemned for its exploitative nature, leading to systemic abuse, violence, and even deaths of women. Ironically, in some cases, alimony claims have started mirroring the same transactional mindset, viewing marriage as a financial investment to be compensated upon breakdown. Certain sections of society argue that unreasonable or exorbitant alimony demands essentially function like a modern dowry extracted during divorce.
This sentiment is echoed in cases where the earning husband is made to pay large sums, sometimes exceeding his capacity, regardless of the circumstances of the separation or the financial independence of the wife. Critics argue that this turns the principle of support into a punitive financial liability, weaponizing alimony in bitter matrimonial disputes.
Judicial Recognition of Gender-Neutral Alimony
Indian courts have increasingly acknowledged that maintenance and alimony need to be based not on gender, but on economic necessity and fairness.
Kanchan v. Kamalendra (AIR 1992 Bom 493)
The Bombay High Court held that a wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she is capable of earning and chooses not to. The Court emphasized that the law does not support idleness and maintenance is meant only for the truly needy.
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors (2015) 6 SCC 353
The Supreme Court reiterated that maintenance is a measure of social justice, and should be “reasonable and realistic, and not illusory.” The purpose is to prevent destitution, not to provide luxury or unjust enrichment.
Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 13 SCC 454
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for determining maintenance and alimony. It included disclosure of income and assets by both parties and emphasized that maintenance should be just, fair, and proportionate. It also acknowledged that in appropriate cases, a wife may be directed to pay alimony to her husband.
Ravi Kumar v. Julmi Devi (2022 Jharkhand HC)
In this case, the High Court held that since the wife was earning substantially and the husband was unemployed, she should pay interim maintenance to the husband. The judgment marked a significant shift toward gender neutrality in matrimonial remedies.
Changing Societal Norms and Misuse
With more women becoming financially independent, the premise that women are always the weaker spouse is losing ground. The blanket assumption that husbands must pay maintenance is being challenged both in courts and in public discourse. However, false or inflated claims of alimony are also rising. According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, over 20% of matrimonial disputes under Section 498A IPC which is now section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, are later found to be frivolous or settled out of court, raising questions about the potential misuse of protective provisions for financial leverage.
The Way Forward: Striking a Balance
Alimony must be seen not as a penalty, but as a support mechanism. The aim should be rehabilitation and justice—not retribution or profit. Reasonableness, transparency, and equality must be the cornerstone principles for awarding alimony, irrespective of gender.
With courts now increasingly asking both parties to submit affidavits disclosing assets and income, and with the rise of mutual consent divorces where parties agree on settlements beforehand, there is a visible shift toward fairness.
Moreover, the idea of pre-nuptial agreements, though not yet mainstream or legally enforceable in India, is gaining traction among urban, educated couples seeking clarity and fairness in case of divorce.
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/