Feminism & Alimony – A Question of Equality or Convenience? By Advocate Vivek Mohla

 

Feminism, in its true essence, advocates for equal rights and opportunities for men and women. It stands for economic independence, social empowerment, and legal parity. However, when it comes to maintenance and alimony, the question arises – are we practicing equality, or is it selective convenience?

The Legal Perspective on Alimony

The law on maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was framed at a time when most women were financially dependent on their husbands. It served a valid purpose—ensuring that a woman who sacrificed her career for family life did not suffer economically post-divorce. However, society has evolved, and so has the role of women. Today, women are highly educated, professionally accomplished, and capable of financial independence. Yet, many still seek lifelong maintenance, even when they are fully capable of earning.

Delhi High Court’s Verdict: A Step Towards True Equality

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that an educated woman with work experience cannot remain unemployed solely to claim maintenance. This decision is a welcome step in ensuring that maintenance laws are not misused to unfairly burden one party. The court noted that an able-bodied, qualified woman should make an effort to sustain herself rather than deliberately staying idle for financial gain.

Equality Means Equal Responsibility

If we are striving for gender equality, then why should only men bear the financial responsibility post-divorce? Consider the following points:

1.  Educated and Capable Women Seeking Alimony – Women who hold professional degrees and have work experience should not be seen as financially incapable. Demanding maintenance in such cases is contrary to the principle of self-reliance.

2.  Misuse of Maintenance Laws – There are instances where women deliberately remain unemployed or resign from their jobs before filing for maintenance, creating a false impression of dependency.

3.  One-Sided Burden on Men – The law is often silent when it comes to women paying maintenance to unemployed husbands. If financial dependency is the basis, then maintenance laws should be gender-neutral.

4.  Alimony as a Tool for Harassment – In some cases, exaggerated claims for unrealistic maintenance amounts serve as a means of pressurizing the husband into unfair settlements.

A Call for Legal Reform

While maintenance laws are essential to protect financially vulnerable spouses, they should not be an easy way out for those who choose not to work despite having the ability to do so.

Courts must recognize the difference between genuine need and deliberate unemployment. Laws should encourage women to be financially independent rather than promoting a system where maintenance becomes an undue entitlement.

Conclusion: Feminism Should Stand for Fairness, Not Selective Benefits

If feminism truly seeks equality, then it must embrace equal responsibilities. Women who demand equal pay, workplace equality, and decision-making roles should also accept that they cannot claim lifelong financial dependence in the name of maintenance. The Delhi High Court’s ruling is a significant step toward ensuring fairness in matrimonial disputes and should serve as a precedent for future cases.

Justice should be gender-neutral. Alimony should be need-based, not an instrument of financial dependence. It is time for the legal system to reinforce the principle that self-sufficiency, not entitlement, is the way forward.

---

Advocate Vivek Mohla is a matrimonial and criminal law practitioner dedicated to legal reform and social justice.