Introduction
Maintenance and alimony laws are the precious tools in ensuring economic assistance and dignity to dependent spouses at divorce or separation. Based on the foundations of welfare and social justice, such legal mechanisms seek to protect individuals from indigence and economic exploitation. But their application and design have also faced intense criticism of late on grounds of gender bias. The legislations have conventionally been designed on the premise that women are the dependent sex, thus imparting a structural bias in their favor. In a changing socio-economic environment where gender roles are being re-defined, such an assumption seems passé and unfair.
This essay critically examines India’s alimony and maintenance legislation, their gendered character, and the resultant issues of men and other sexes. It examines court judgments, social implications, international comparative analysis, and debates to bring out the need for reforms. It also evaluates measures taken and yet to be taken to equitize and inclusive these legislations.
Against the backdrop of the constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14 and the principle of non-discrimination under Article 15, this article seeks to problematize whether or not today’s maintenance and alimony laws truly mete out justice or if it perpetuates inequality in the form of gendered stereotypes. Examining not only legal provisions but also social, economic, and psychological realities, this article seeks to offer a holistic view of the imperative for change.
Legal Framework and Definitions of Maintenance and Alimony Laws
Alimony and maintenance are both post-marital support payments, but of different scope and purpose. Maintenance more generally describes recurring financial payments ordered against a dependent or spouse in the course of or upon living separately, whether or not divorce. Alimony is more commonly cited as a term in the context of post-divorce agreement and can be paid in lump sum or periodic payment. The primary aim is to make sure that the economically weaker spouse, in most cases the wife, does not become penniless due to the breakdown of the marital relationship.
In India, the law dealing with such remedies is in disarray and predominantly reliant on personal laws, which differ religiously. Hindus are regulated by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, both of which offer maintenance during and after marriage. Muslims are regulated by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, where maintenance tends to be confined to the period of iddat, but constitutional appeals have extended interpretation in certain cases. The Indian Divorce Act, 1869, and the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, cover Christians and Parsis, respectively.
In addition to personal laws, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, Section 125 also offers a secular relief to wives, children, and parents who cannot support themselves. Yet, this section, as progressive in spirit as it is, has made gendered assumptions in that it has largely envisioned men as earners and women as dependents. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, once again empowers women’s rights by giving them the right to claim monetary relief even in live-in or non-marital relationships.
One of the primary weak links of all these acts is that they are not gender-neutral and homogeneous. The laws, most of the time, assume the male spouse as the earning member and the female spouse as the dependent. This assumption puts an enormous obstacle for men, LGBTQ+ individuals, and the non-binary, who can also become economically vulnerable. Also, Indian family law being in shambles results in unequal results based on jurisdiction, religion, and facts of the case. The lack of a Uniform Civil Code contributes to such inequality and renders maintenance rights unequal and also capricious at times.
Correspondingly, though India has established a comprehensive system to cater to post-marital maintenance, the law continues to be gendered in its assumptions, restrictive in scope, and asymmetrical in application. There needs to be reform in order to enable justice to be extended in a country where economic patterns and gender relations are changing fast.
Gender Bias in Maintenance and Alimony Laws
2.1 The Presumption of Female Dependence
The basis of maintenance and alimony law in India is the patriarchal assumption that men are born breadwinners and women are born dependent. This assumption informs statutory provisions, judicial decisions, and even public understanding. Despite the reality that statutes like Section 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are gender-neutrally worded, the real practice is marred by a pervasive gender bias. Maintenance is usually awarded to the wife, be she rich or having higher earning capability than the husband.
This prejudiced assumption not only burdens men unfairly but also patronizes women by discouraging handicap without investigating facts. It sets back the trend towards gender equality by believing that women are economically backward everywhere. Indeed, women today make up a significant majority of the working population and many women have financial independence and resources to support themselves after divorce.
Besides, there is a structural court bias to evaluate female “needs” by appreciably more generous criteria than are used to determine adjudicate male “burdens.” The husband’s support obligation is highlighted while the wife’s earning ability is minimized or neglected entirely. Judges often do not use neutral financial testing and thus create awards which are incommensurate and sometimes punitive.
This assumption is particularly destructive in high-conflict divorce, where maintenance is not employed as a lifeline but as a club. Men are frequently bullied into accepting unfavorable financial settlements to avoid long-term litigation or damage to their reputations. They suffer immense emotional and economic pressures and are frequently bullied into mental illness or estrangement from children and, in the worst-case scenario, suicide.
The actual route to equality lies in the establishment of a fact that economic vulnerability is not a matter of gender. The courts must have a gender-neutral approach towards maintenance and alimony and look at every case on its merit, depending upon earning capacity, property, liabilities, and marriage sacrifices—whether male or female.
2.2 Disparity in Legal Provisions
The disparity between the provisions of religious and civil laws creates confusion. It results in discrimination and refusal of justice on a regular basis. Though specific gender-neutral language is used in certain laws, others use language like only wives, so that men and other dependent spouses are excluded. For instance, Section 125 CrPC specifically, otherwise normally described as a progressive, secular law, restricts the right to claim maintenance to “wives,” “children,” and parents,” thus excluding husbands and same-sex spouses.
This discrimination still leads to gender stereotyping and exclusion from equal protection and application of the law, contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. An economic abandonment victim or sacrificing husband (e.g., giving up employment to finance his wife’s career or taking care of children) has no statutory recourse to claim maintenance, except interpreted in an imaginative sense by the court.
Moreover, there are enforcement provisions under such legislations which disproportionately favor wives. Defaulting husbands can be arrested and charged with contempt of court, but the same coercion is not applied to wives to substantiate allegations or risk sanctions for giving false evidence. The consequence is an unbalanced playing field.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, although a revolutionary piece of legislation for its time, is not complete in the sense of inclusivity either. Its “aggrieved person” definition does not include men or trans and non-binary abusers, and hence they do not fall within the ambit. This excludes a large section of people from getting interim maintenance, compensation, or shelter—even in the case of obvious emotional or economic abuse.
Such contradictions only sustain a women-protecting justice system that seeks not to hear others’ sufferings. Legal reform must encompass revolutionary shifts in vocabulary, jurisdiction, and enforcement tactics so that economically poor everyone—regardless of gender, religion, or sexuality—has equal access to justice.
2.3 Judicial Bias and Misuse
The judiciary, while statutorily guided, is also a key driving force for establishing the interpretation and application of maintenance law. Unconscious judicial prejudice, in the majority of instances, normally leans towards women as viewed victims and men as viewed abusers. This has resulted in a considerable number of cases of abuse of maintenance laws, thereby tarnishing the image of the justice system and harming genuinely aggrieved parties.
In response to Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), the Supreme Court did something significant in checking abuse by bringing in norms for deciding maintenance, such as compulsory disclosure of financial resources and speedy proceedings. Although this order was a good step, its enforcement has been piecemeal in lower courts, most of which continue to award interim maintenance without a sharp inquiry.
Abuse is not necessarily anecdotal. Men reported instances in which wives withheld news of work, exaggerated expenses, or requested maintenance while cohabiting in the same home with other working household members. Even in situations with seeming proof of self-sufficiency, courts have at times awarded maintenance on status alone as a married individual, without consideration of current need or relative hardship.
False claims also weigh the already clogged judicial system. Maintenance petitions are also occasionally used to stall divorce hearings, coerce settlements, or use psychological pressure. Men are sometimes arrested, socially boycotted, and economically devastated for non-compliance with inflated or unjustified maintenance orders in some cases.
These activities not only rob maintenance laws of their legitimacy of purpose but also cause harm to women who are rightfully entitled. The legitimacy of legal protection is lost when laws become a tool for bargaining instead of survival. The courts must ensure that this does not happen by insisting on transparency, minimizing assessment criteria, and punishing wilful misrepresentation or concealment of facts.
The moment is opportune for a transition towards gender-balanced adjudication. A balanced, evidence-based approach is needed to make sure that maintenance becomes a means of protection and not one of vengeance, manipulation, or economic exploitation.
Social and Psychological Consequences of Gendered Maintenance Laws
3.1 Consequences of Men
The social, psychological, and economic lives of men are affected by gender-contaminated maintenance laws beyond the courtroom and deep within them. Though the law is intended to shield economically poor people, it prefers to take women for granted as being among them and puts excessive burdens on men. This is more disastrous where the man lacks economic security or has incurred losses like loss of employment, indebtedness, or sickness. Under such circumstances, court maintenance orders become not just a burden but one of survival.
Maintenance proceeding men also frequently indicate feelings of helplessness, shame, and frustration—particularly if forced to make large payments to well-off or even wealthy ex-husbands. Having to continue to support an estranged or hostile ex-spouse typically leads to mental illness, with many becoming anxious, depressed, and isolated from their peers. The cultural expectation that men need to be sole providers is further tormenting because men’s financial insecurity is mocked and belittled.
Furthermore, there is a dramatic lack of institutional assistance to men dealing with these legal and emotional problems. In comparison to women, who are able to turn to a range of NGOs, government agencies, and women’s commissions, men have little or no official outlet. The nonexistence of helplines, shelters, or legal services sponsored by the government for men is symptomatic of the firmly held conviction that men do not fit the victim category.
This has brought about men’s rights groups, which have referred to cases of dubious allegations and economic oppression in the form of maintenance proceedings. These groups have demanded legal reform and an acknowledgement of male victimhood with calls for balanced laws that consider the economic condition of both parties on their merits.
In a world that increasingly promotes gender equality, there is the need to go beyond stereotypes. The laws of maintenance must be reengineered not just to be fair to women but also to protect men from unjust punishment or loss of dignity and rights.
3.2 Exclusion of LGBTQ+ and Non-Binary Persons
Exclusion of non-binary and LGBTQ+ persons from Indian alimony and maintenance law is an actual failure on the part of the nation to hold itself to legal equality. Though declarations such as landmark court rulings in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and NALSA v. Union of India (2014) established constitutional grounds for the identification of non-heteronormative identity, family law itself has been untouched by these developments.
This legal vacuum is acutely illustrative when LGBTQ+ relationships dissolve. In contrast to straight spouses who can claim entitlement to spousal maintenance under existing law, queer partners have no such remedy at all, no matter the length of a relationship or level of financial dependency by one partner on another. This puts vulnerable partners, particularly those who had put aside or suspended careers or who were stay-at-home wives of many years in cohabiting relationships, vulnerable to abandonment with no recourse.
This lack of recognition produces massive psychological damage. When the queer are not legally recognized for their relationships, they become erased from life, and it produces a sense of invisibility and institutional exclusion. Economic vulnerability, emotional abuse, and social isolation become magnified when legal support structures deny even their presence.
This is especially harmful to transgender and non-binary people, who are already so economically marginalized. They often are not even able to find formal jobs or housing because of systemic discrimination. When these people are included in a domestic partnership and become financially reliant on a partner, the lack of maintenance rights can see them end up homeless or destitute after a breakup.
The international world provides other paradigms for inclusion. Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada are nations with gender-neutral family law that provides spousal maintenance rights to gay and queer couples. India, on the other hand, is still stuck in colonial mores that cannot capture the diverse reality of its people.
So as to fill this lacuna, lawmakers need to act quickly to make laws that include “partner” or “spouse” in a gender- and orientation-neutral manner. Maintenance law needs to extend to any person in a dependent domestic relationship regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Then, finally, we can claim that our legal system reflects the values of justice and equality for everyone.
Comparison with Other Jurisdictions
4.1 United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has a level and gender-equal policy of maintenance and alimony in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973. The courts consider the economic needs and assets of both the spouses, their capacity to earn post-divorce, their contribution in monetary and domestic capacities towards the marriage, and their capacity to earn in the future. Maintenance is not granted as a right but on equitable and just grounds, placing men and women on an equal footing in seeking money from their spouses.
UK courts emphasize “clean break” orders, as they get the spouses independent as early as possible after divorce. Not only does this eliminate long-term dependency, but it also minimizes post-divorce conflict. Periodic maintenance, if granted, is normally subject to periodic review, in the sense of being a transitional and not a permanent one.
Significantly, same-sex couples in marriage or civil union are placed on an equal legal basis in relation to their right to maintenance, proof of an inclusively oriented system. The UK system is an illustration of how gender-neutral and inclusive law relating to maintenance can be successfully administered without compromising the economic rights of either party.
4.2 United States
Alimony in the United States is governed state by state, but as a general rule, the process is gender-neutral. California, New York, and Texas have specific formulas in place that consider the length of marriage, their quality of life, both spouses’ contribution, and ability to earn. Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act has been a driving force in the grant of alimony in states.
Among the noteworthy features of American law is that of rehabilitative alimony, in which money is paid for a limited time so that the dependent spouse can acquire education and training to be able to sustain himself or herself. Permanent alimony is not common and is normally reserved for situations involving older or disabled spouse.
In particular, a chain of prominent court cases led to women having to pay alimony to their ex-husbands, as part of a cultural shift towards the acknowledgment of male economic dependence. Gay marriages are equally well protected by federal law in the wake of the Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) ruling, providing marriage equality across the entire country.
The American system is also significant because it does permit prenuptial and postnuptial agreements which can secure alimony obligations before marriage—guaranteeing certainty and limiting litigation upon divorce.
4.3 Canada
Canada’s Divorce Act, 1985, is a fair and precise basis for spousal support. Courts look to the economic status of the two individuals, the contributions to marriage, and the economic disadvantage resulting from the breakdown. There is no consideration of gender as a basis for qualification. Rather, there is a fundamental concern with responding to economic imbalance generated through marriage.
The Spousal Support Guidelines (SSAG) ensure consistency and predictability for awards. The Canadian system also acknowledges common-law relationships, which permit cohabiting couples to claim spousal support in case they reside in the same dwelling for a given period or have children.”.
Moreover, homosexual couples receive equal treatment in spousal support, and gender diversity is provided for by the law. The SSAG consider parenting contributions, forgone career opportunity, and post-wedding financial need in balance, without gendered assumptions.
Canada’s system is one of the most advanced models in the world—tuning to peak fairness, simplicity, and neutrality.
4.4 South Africa
South African maintenance legislation is governed by the Maintenance Act, 1998, and is also gender-neutral. Both sexes of spouses, irrespective of sexual orientation, are entitled to claim maintenance on grounds of financial need and capacity to pay by the other spouse. South African law also covers claims by long-term cohabitants, acknowledging a wider range of domestic partnerships.
Besides that, the South African courts have also emphasized constitutional equality and dignity under maintenance orders. The liberal interpretation of the nation’s Constitution ensured that LGBTQ+ partners and non-binary individuals are not forgotten when it comes to seeking aid.
The South African Maintenance Courts are specialist courts that deal with such applications efficiently and usually without the necessity of full trial, thus making application easier for economically underprivileged individuals.
Legal Developments and the Way Forward
5.1 Recent Judicial Pronouncements
Indian courts have made some efforts towards achieving greater equity in maintenance legislation. In Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), the Supreme Court established detailed guidelines on maintenance, such as compulsory financial disclosure, a standard format for affidavits, and timelines of disposal of maintenance petitions. It was a pathbreaking judgment, acknowledging the need for uniformity and avoiding arbitrary grantments.
Similarly. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015), the Court upheld women’s and children’s right to dignified living and reiterated the significance of maintenance as a substantive right. Judicial reform is not enough to offset statutory defaults.
There is also increased acceptance of men’s rights in family litigation. There are a few courts that have refused maintenance to fit women who can work and earn, holding on to the principle that dependency needs to be established and not presumed.
Much still needs to be achieved despite these trends. Courts continue to be patchy, and statutory changes are a necessity to infuse the principles enunciated in these judgments.
5.2 Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and Its Relevance
The argument for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has gathered strength in recent times. It would unify marriage, divorce, and maintenance laws across religions. If framed non-discriminatorily, it would do away with gender discrimination and introduce one norm of financial responsibility.
But the task is in not allowing the UCC to substitute one discriminatory code for another. It must acknowledge current realities, treat all sexualities and genders equally, and provide equal remedies without regard to religious denomination. A progressive UCC must also contain provisions regarding prenuptial agreements, limits on maintenance, and interim relief.
Reform should then be followed by training of the judicial officers and the lawyers to overcome prejudices and deliver constitutional ideals of dignity and equality.
Conclusion
Maintenance and alimony laws are meant to be social safety nets that defend economically vulnerable individuals following divorce or separation. In India, though, such legislations are gendered assumptions, religious imbalances, and systematic discriminations that form injustice most of the time. Even if the goal was to empower women in patriarchal environments, the enforcement sometimes has led to cookie-cutter models of dependency that disregard changing social realities.
Men, non-binary people, and same-sex couples all suffer equally from gross difficulties in getting justice in accordance with existing laws. Economic superiority of men and women’s dependency should find no ground in a world where roles are no longer fixed and economic potential is very diverse in individuals. Other than this, discriminatory enforcement of rights of maintenance under personal laws has resulted in unequal and inevitable consequences, denying the concept of certainty in law.
India reaches a crossroads. As society moves toward gender equality, so must its law. The aim has to be to substitute paternalism with parity, suspicion with evidence, and exclusion with inclusion.
In sum, maintenance and alimony statutes must be weapons of empowerment, not exploitation. A fair and comprehensive system of law is not just a legislative imperative—it is a constitutional and moral mandate.
About Author
Anannya Mohanty , a law student at Symbiosis Law School, has a keen interest in Alternative Dispute Resolution, Corporate Law, and Constitutional Law. With a strong passion for legal research and writing, Anannya Mohanty actively engages in exploring diverse legal issues and emerging trends. Always enthusiastic about opportunities that involve in-depth analysis, they believe that consistent legal writing significantly enhances knowledge, sharpens critical thinking, and builds a deeper understanding of complex legal frameworks essential for a well-rounded legal education.
References and bibliography
- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/5026414.pdf?abstractid=5026414&mirid=1
- https://ijlmh.com/paper/maintenance-laws-in-india-and-gender-inequality/
- https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/jfal/article/view/1850
- https://ilkogretim-online.org/index.php/pub/article/download/3951/3839/7580
- https://iajesm.in/admin/papers/679b2a4729f8d.pdf
- https://ijlr.iledu.in/an-analysis-on-misuse-of-maintenance-rights-by-women-and-addressing-gender-inequality-in-maintenance-laws-in-india/
- https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4316231
- https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/200.-Divya-Ajit.pdf
- https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CONTEMPORARY-ANALYSIS-OF-DIVORCE-AND-MAINTENANCE-LAWS-IN-MODERN-INDIA.pdf
- http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/28C2EEF6-9192-448A-BE64-27E9D23D1905.pdf
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13777-maintenance-and-alimony-laws-in-india-a-critical-analysis.html
- https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/maintenance-under-hindu-law/
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/10/18/maintenance-under-section-125-crpc/
- https://www.legalbites.in/maintenance-under-muslim-law/
- https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/maintenance-under-the-domestic-violence-act-2005-15212.asp
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4922-maintenance-under-hindu-marriage-act-1955.html
- https://www.ourlegalworld.com/maintenance-under-hindu-marriage-act-1955/
- https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/maintenance-under-section-24-of-hindu-marriage-act-1955-15125.asp
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/11/23/rajnesh-v-neha-guidelines-on-maintenance/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1839337/
- https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-guidelines-maintenance-rajnesh-vs-neha-165150
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/09/bhuwan-mohan-singh-v-meena-maintenance/
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/maintenance-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956/
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/05/25/lgbtqia-rights-in-india-important-laws-judgments/
- https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/lgbtq-rights-in-india/
- https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/maintenance-laws-in-india/
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2069-maintenance-under-section-125-crpc.html
- https://www.legalbites.in/maintenance-under-hindu-law/
- https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/maintenance-under-hindu-adoptions-and-maintenance-act-1956-15213.asp
- https://www.legalbites.in/maintenance-under-hindu-marriage-act-1955/