Written by Huzaifa Ansar, Lloyd Law College Greater Noida, LLB 2023-2026, During internship with LeDroit.
Abstract
In India, the legal framework surrounding maintenance and alimony has traditionally focused on protecting women, often overlooking the financial vulnerabilities faced by men. While laws like Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and personal laws provide for maintenance, they are generally interpreted in favour of women, leading to legal and procedural hurdles for men seeking similar relief. Men who are financially dependent due to unemployment, disability, or other circumstances face significant challenges in claiming maintenance, as societal stereotypes and judicial biases often undermine their cases. The stigma attached to men seeking alimony further discourages legitimate claims, reinforcing the patriarchal notion that men must always be providers. Although some judicial decisions have acknowledged men’s rights to maintenance, such instances remain rare and inconsistent. This underscores the urgent need for gender-neutral reforms in India’s family law to ensure equitable treatment for all parties, regardless of gender.
Key Words: Maintenance, Stereotypes, Alimony, Equitable.
Introduction
In contemporary society, legal rights and gender equality are pressing matters that garner considerable focus. While much of the conversation highlights women’s rights, it is also crucial to investigate the legal rights of men, especially in a diverse and complicated society like India. This article to dig into the obstacles and achievements related to men’s legal rights in India, particularly in family law, workplace rights, and protection from false allegations.
Traditionally, Indian society has been patriarchal, with men frequently occupying dominant positions in both public and private domains. This backdrop has shaped the legal system, which has adapted to reflect the evolving dynamics of gender roles. Initially concentrated on empowering women and addressing gender-based discrimination, recent decades have seen an increased recognition of the necessity to safeguard men’s rights as well.
While Indian legislation technically permits both men and women to seek maintenance and alimony, men encounter substantial legal and social obstacles when pursuing such support. The legal context is changing, but enduring stereotypes and procedural barriers often hinder men’s efforts to obtain maintenance. Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allow either partner to request interim or permanent maintenance if they do not have a sufficient income, rendering the law gender-neutral in theory.
Sometimes courts granted maintenance to husbands, especially in instances where the wife has a significantly higher income or when the husband is disabled. Nonetheless, men face hurdles due to the assumption of financial superiority. They must present compelling evidence of financial dependence, incapacity, or inability to earn, which undergoes more rigorous scrutiny than similar claims filed by women. Additionally, there exists a pronounced social stigma surrounding men seeking maintenance, and those who do may encounter mockery or a lack of support from family and friends.
The burden of proof is typically heavier for men; they are required to persuasively demonstrate a lack of income and the wife’s superior earning capacity. Certain laws, such as Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Domestic Violence Act, lack gender neutrality. As a result, the number of cases where men successfully claim maintenance is limited, leading to scarce legal precedents and insufficient awareness among attorneys and judges. Moreover, many men are either unaware of their rights or discouraged from pursuing claims due to a prevailing sense of futility.
Legal Framework and Gender Bias
When we hear the word “divorce,” we often assume that the wife will receive maintenance and alimony from her husband. This perception is shaped by societal beliefs rather than a true understanding of the law. It reflects a stereotype that only men pay significant amounts of alimony to their ex-wives, and society tends to accept this without question.
The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 includes various provisions regarding alimony. According to Section 24 of this act, if either spouse lacks independent and sufficient income to cover their basic needs or the costs of legal proceedings post-divorce, the court may grant a monthly allowance at the request of either the husband or wife. This section also addresses temporary alimony, also referred to as interim alimony or pendente lite, which aims to support the financially dependent spouse during the divorce process until its completion. The purpose of this short-term alimony is to preserve the existing Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 situation while addressing immediate needs. Section pertains to permanent alimony, which is awarded when the court finds that one spouse requires continuous financial assistance after the divorce. The financially dependent spouse needs support to sustain the same lifestyle as maintained during the marriage, and this is usually awarded when there is a notable difference in the earning capabilities or financial resources between the spouses.
Under Muslim Law, a wife’s right to maintenance from her husband is absolute. Even if the wife has her own income, the husband is still obligated to provide for her. Per section 3 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a divorced woman is entitled to a fair and reasonable amount of maintenance from her ex-husband during the Iddat period. This section also refers to the Mehar and other assets belonging to Muslim women that must be provided at the time of divorce. Furthermore, section 4 states that if a woman has not remarried and cannot support herself after the Iddat period, the magistrate can mandate maintenance payments. Additionally, section 5 of this act addresses the amount of maintenance, indicating that the court has discretion in determining it while taking various factors into account.
Some laws, like Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Domestic Violence Act, are not gender-neutral and provide maintenance rights only to women, children, and parents, excluding men. In the Domestic Violence Act, there is no mention of violence committed by women against men, which is increasing day by day as evidenced by recent cases.
Courts and society often presume that women are the financially weaker party, leading to a default expectation that men should pay maintenance, even in cases where the wife is more capable or earns a higher income. This issue is exacerbated by societal stereotypes. Men seeking maintenance often face stigma and scepticism due to traditional gender roles that depict them as providers. As a result, they encounter higher evidentiary burdens and have fewer successful claims. In many instances, even when the wife is well-educated and earns a good salary, she may still seek a considerable amount of alimony from her husband. This situation causes significant stress for men, as it can hinder their financial well-being.
Judicial Interpretation and Precedents
Under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, either the husband or the wife has the right to request maintenance pendente lite (interim maintenance) and permanent alimony. The judiciary has at times applied this provision to provide assistance to husbands who are unemployed, disabled, or otherwise incapable of supporting themselves.
Notable Cases:
1. Kanchan v. Kamalendra (1992): The Bombay High Court decided that if a wife has the ability to earn, the husband might not be required to pay maintenance, indicating that the capacity to earn is an important factor for both genders.
2. Swaraj Garg v. K.M. Garg (1978): The Delhi High Court awarded interim maintenance to the husband under Section 24, recognizing that maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act is applicable to both genders.
3. Ravindra S. Chavan v. Shilpa Ravindra Chavan (2017): The Bombay High Court reinforced a husband’s entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, noting that if a husband cannot take care of himself and his wife has adequate resources, she is duty-bound to support him.
4. Vinay Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018): The Supreme Court explained that Section 125 of the CrPC is not limited to women; men can also seek maintenance if they cannot sustain themselves for justifiable reasons.
Even though the provision uses gender-neutral language, there has been inconsistency in court decisions. In numerous instances, husbands’ applications are either rejected or granted minimal amounts, often swayed by persistent gender stereotypes and societal norms about male financial obligations. However, there is a gradual shift in certain rulings where courts have started acknowledging the financial hardships that men may face in marriages. In some cases, courts have noted that if the husband is not working and the wife is, he should be eligible for interim support. This indicates a growing judicial openness to interpreting the law in a gender-neutral fashion.
Even when courts favour husbands, the enforcement of such judgments remains problematic. There frequently exists public resistance, a lack of understanding in family courts, and procedural delays that diminish the effective application of these decisions.
While successful maintenance claims from men are still uncommon, courts have increasingly acknowledged such requests, particularly when the husband is incapacitated or when the wife earns more. The Supreme Court has also recently raised permanent alimony for divorced yet unmarried wives, showcasing a trend aimed at ensuring adequate support based on need rather than solely gender.
Practical Challenges in Filing Claims
Indian law permits either spouse to seek maintenance under statutes like the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, but men encounter significant challenges in doing so. These challenges stem from legal ambiguities and societal biases that disadvantage male claimants, as men are traditionally viewed as financial providers.
Many men fear public shaming and ridicule, which discourages them from pursuing claims. Judges often approach these cases with scepticism due to traditional gender norms, resulting in inconsistent outcomes where men may receive lower amounts or be denied maintenance altogether, even when unemployed or disabled.
Legal aid is primarily geared towards women and marginalized groups, leaving many men, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds, unable to afford legal representation. Men must often prove financial dependence or illness, requiring documentation that can be difficult to obtain.
Additionally, a lack of legal precedent regarding men’s maintenance rights creates hesitance among lawyers and judges. Many men are unaware of their rights, and public education on the subject is minimal. Despite directives for courts to resolve interim maintenance applications within 4 to 6 months, significant delays are common.
Finally, the burden of proof lies heavily on the applicant, who must demonstrate need, while the respondent needs to establish the applicant’s financial independence, complicating the process further.
Financial and Emotional Impact on Men
Men pursuing maintenance or alimony in India face substantial legal and procedural challenges, alongside severe financial and emotional consequences. These impacts are frequently neglected in public discourse, as societal narratives often depict men as primary earners rather than potential dependents. However, in instances where men are jobless, disabled, elderly, or victims of financial coercion, the fallout from divorce or separation can be profoundly damaging.
Some men are burdened with ongoing financial obligations—like child support or alimony—while they have no income, which can result in bankruptcy or even incarceration for failure to pay. Family litigation in India can drag on for years, and the expenses related to hiring legal representation, attending multiple court sessions, and other costs can rapidly drain finances. Men who are already in financial distress may choose to drop their claims simply because they cannot sustain the litigation expenses.
There is considerable social stigma attached to men requesting alimony; they are often seen as “unmanly” or “exploitative.” Such individuals frequently endure mockery from friends, family, and even legal professionals, leading to feelings of embarrassment and isolation. Many are anxious about being seen as financially inadequate or manipulative, even when they truly require support. This financial insecurity, coupled with a lack of empathy or comprehension from society and the legal system, heightens stress, anxiety, and depression among men.
Experiencing emotional abuse or degradation during court proceedings—especially when their claims are belittled or dismissed—can profoundly affect their self-worth, causing withdrawal and, in severe cases, thoughts of suicide. Men who are denied maintenance often forfeit custody or visitation rights with their children due to their precarious financial circumstances, even though they are emotionally capable and willing to care for them. The inability to provide financially may be misconstrued as an indication of parental inadequacy.
Emerging Trends and Legal Reform Debates
In recent years, India has witnessed growing discourse around gender-neutral family laws, particularly in the realm of maintenance and alimony rights. The traditional view of men as sole providers is slowly being challenged by evolving social dynamics and judicial observations, which recognize that men too can be financially vulnerable in marriages. This has given rise to several emerging trends and ongoing debates around legal reforms to ensure more equitable treatment.
Recent Case on Alimony Threat
A 34-year-old man from India, Atul Subhash, who worked as an AI technical software engineer, took his own life on December 9, 2024. He left behind a 24-page note and a 90-minute video posted online, in which he accused his wife of mistreatment and harassment. In his final moments, he not only blamed his wife but also accused his mother-in-law and brother-in-law of ongoing harassment. He expressed concerns about the integrity of the court system, insisting that he had not received a fair trial. In his suicide note, he stated that justice was owed to him. In the video shared on social media, he alleged that his in-laws were involved in “extortion,” claiming they demanded money to drop the case and insisted that he increase the monthly support he was providing to his wife from 40,000 to 200,000 rupees. He questioned the functioning of the judicial system, detailing the numerous times he attended court hearings and accused a judge of harassment, attempting to solicit a bribe from him while ridiculing him. Following this event, his wife, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law were taken into custody and charged with abetting his suicide.
Conclusion
It can be argued that laws designed to protect women are intended for their benefit and should not be used to threaten their partners. Alimony laws exist to provide women with a decent standard of living following the dissolution of marriage, not to extort money from their husbands. Misusing women-centric laws can have serious repercussions for their partners. Women should approach the pursuit of alimony with reasonableness. The principle of equality, regardless of gender, must be upheld in every case. Societal perceptions need to shift; it should not be assumed that only men are the foundation of every household. Women can also serve as strong and resilient pillars for a family and have the capability to succeed in various roles. While it is important to address genuine cases of economic hardship, the law must evolve to reflect changing societal dynamics and gender roles. A balanced approach that prioritizes fairness, accountability, and gender neutrality is essential to ensure justice for everyone involved. It is time to move beyond stereotypes and create a system that treats both spouses equitably in the aftermath of a marriage. By recognizing and addressing these issues, India can progress towards a more equitable society where the rights of all individuals, regardless of gender, are respected and upheld.
References
