A Constitutional and Comparative Analysis of Gender-Neutral Alimony

Maintenance laws in India were originally designed to protect financially dependent women post-divorce. However, in today’s evolving socio-economic landscape, where women are equally educated and earning, the presumption of female financial dependency raises concerns under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Non-Discrimination) of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, real-life cases show that men, too, can be victims of domestic abuse and financial exploitation, yet legal remedies remain limited. This paper argues for gender-neutral maintenance laws, drawing comparisons with Western legal systems where maintenance is based on financial need rather than gender.

I. Introduction

Marriage, as an institution, has undergone significant transformations in recent decades. Women are no longer universally financially dependent on their husbands, and in some cases, they earn more than their male counterparts. Despite this, Indian personal laws governing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC(144 BNSS), Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), and other religious laws continue to favor women as primary beneficiaries.

This paper examines:

• The constitutional conflict of gender-biased maintenance laws.
• Judicial trends in India towards gender neutrality.
• Cases where men face domestic violence and unfair financial demands.
• Comparative analysis of gender-neutral maintenance laws in Western jurisdictions.
• The aim is to assess whether India should reform its maintenance laws to align with contemporary gender equality principles.

II. Constitutional Conflict: Maintenance and the Right to Equality

The Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law under:

• Article 14: Prohibits discrimination and ensures equal legal protection.
• Article 15(1): Forbids discrimination based on sex.
• Article 15(3): Allows special provisions for women.

The continued presumption that only women are financially dependent directly contradicts Article 14. Maintenance should be based on financial need rather than gender to comply with constitutional equality.

Judicial Interpretation of Maintenance

In Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), the Supreme Court emphasized that both spouses' financial capacities must be considered before granting maintenance.
 
Courts have ruled that qualified, earning women cannot claim maintenance, indicating a slow shift toward gender-neutrality.
 
However, statutory provisions remain outdated, reinforcing a gendered approach rather than an economic need-based system.

III. Reality Check: How Women Perceive Relationships and Legal Battles

In legal practice, diverse behavioral patterns among women facing marital breakdowns have been observed. A significant number of women—especially those with modest backgrounds or traditional values—choose not to initiate criminal proceedings or invoke domestic violence provisions, even when they may be legally entitled to do so. These women often prioritize the preservation of their marital relationships over immediate legal relief, believing that once a case is filed, especially under Section 498A IPC (85,86 of BNS) or the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the relationship may suffer irreparable damage.

This reflects a conscious and cautious decision-making process, grounded in emotional investment and social considerations. Many of these women genuinely hope for reconciliation and a better future, often delaying or avoiding legal intervention in the interest of familial stability.

Conversely, a growing number of modern, urban women approach marital breakdown from a more pragmatic or individualistic lens. For some, the pursuit of personal autonomy and dignity outweighs the need to sustain a strained relationship. While this attitude is valid in toxic or abusive environments, the broader question arises:

Are all relationships labeled as toxic truly so, or are some conflicts capable of resolution without litigation?

It is important not to generalize either perspective. However, this divergence underscores the need to assess legal claims within the full context of the relationship, rather than accepting unilateral narratives. The law must protect those genuinely in need, while also guarding against exaggerated or vengeful litigation that may distort the original spirit of protective legislation.

IV. The Unspoken Reality: When Men Are Victims

While domestic violence and dowry harassment were historically significant issues, modern cases reveal an increasing number of men facing domestic abuse and financial coercion.

Men as Victims of Domestic Violence

Although domestic violence laws (DV Act, 2005) largely focus on protecting women, studies and case law reveal:

• Men hesitate to report abuse due to societal stigma.
• Lack of legal provisions leaves them without remedies.
• Some men have committed suicide due to domestic harassment.
• Unreasonable Financial Demands in Divorce

Many men, during divorce settlements, face extreme financial demands, such as:

• Surrendering entire property/assets.
• Excessive alimony beyond reasonable needs.
• Lack of negotiation or compromise.
• If maintenance laws are designed for financial support, their misuse as a financial weapon against men must be addressed through legal reforms.

V. Global Trends: Gender-Neutral Maintenance Laws 

Several Western jurisdictions have reformed their family law systems to reflect gender-neutral principles when awarding spousal maintenance or alimony. Below is a summary of practices in major countries:

United States:
Maintenance laws are gender-neutral. Alimony is awarded based on income disparity, earning capacity, and lifestyle during marriage. Women are increasingly being ordered to pay maintenance, especially in cases where they are the higher-earning spouse.
 
United Kingdom:
The UK employs a gender-neutral approach where the primary considerations include the duration of the marriage, financial needs, and earning capacity. Courts prefer short-term, rehabilitative support over permanent maintenance.
 
Canada:
Canadian family law focuses on economic disadvantage suffered due to the marriage, regardless of gender. Women and men can both be ordered to pay maintenance depending on the financial facts of the case.
 
Australia:
The Australian system promotes financial independence post-divorce. Spousal maintenance is awarded only where one party cannot support themselves adequately, and the other party has the capacity to pay. Gender is not a relevant factor.
 
Germany:
German law provides temporary maintenance to a financially disadvantaged spouse. Long-term support is rare, and self-sufficiency is expected. Maintenance can be awarded to either party, based on income loss resulting from the marriage.
 
France:
In France, spousal support is limited and only granted where justified by economic need. The courts prefer encouraging independence and discourage long-term dependency. Both men and women may be recipients or payers.
 
Sweden:
The Swedish model emphasizes self-sufficiency. Maintenance is generally temporary and is awarded only in cases of substantial disparity or inability to adjust economically after separation. Gender neutrality is strictly maintained.

Alimony should be financial-need based, not gender-based.
Long-term maintenance should be discouraged, promoting self-reliance.
Both men and women should have equal claims to support, depending on financial hardship.

VI. The Need for Legal Reform

To align with constitutional equality and global trends, India must:

• Amend maintenance laws to be gender-neutral.
• Introduce financial need as the primary criterion for alimony.
• Protect men from domestic violence and financial exploitation.
• Discourage excessive financial demands by either spouse.

The original intent of maintenance laws was to protect the financially weaker spouse. However, in today’s reality, gender-neutral reforms are necessary to prevent misuse and uphold true constitutional equality. A balanced legal system must ensure that genuine financial hardship is addressed, regardless of gender.

Should India continue to enforce gender-specific maintenance laws, or is it finally time to legislate a truly gender-neutral, need-based alimony system that reflects the realities of modern relationships?

Image (c) istock.com