The current structure of alimony laws in India, though rooted in the idea of protection and support, often leads to glaring imbalances, especially in cases of second marriages. A peculiar and seemingly unjust situation arises when both the man and woman enter into their second marriages.

In some interpretations of maintenance laws, a woman may be legally entitled to claim alimony from both her previous husband and her current one—if she can prove dependence or lack of sustenance. On the flip side, the man, regardless of his financial condition, may be legally bound to pay alimony not just to his first wife but also to his second, should the relationship deteriorate. This creates a lopsided equation where the man carries a double financial burden, while the woman may draw support from multiple sources.

The judiciary’s intent behind such provisions was likely to prevent destitution and abandonment of women, especially in a society where economic independence among women is still growing. However, without strict checks and contextual evaluation, these laws are now being misused or stretched in ways that defy fairness. When support mechanisms begin to resemble lifelong financial penalties regardless of personal circumstances or earning capacity, they stop being protective and instead become punitive. For instance, even if the second wife is educated, employable, or already earning, the husband may still be directed to provide alimony simply due to procedural interpretations of "maintenance."

This situation raises serious questions about the need for reform in India’s personal and family laws. Laws must evolve with changing societal dynamics, where women are increasingly independent and remarriages are common. Alimony should be need-based, gender-neutral, and time-bound—focusing on temporary assistance until the dependent spouse regains financial footing, not as an indefinite entitlement. Continuing with outdated frameworks not only burdens men unfairly but also undermines genuine gender equality. A just judiciary should aim for balanced responsibility, not one-sided obligations based on archaic assumptions.

Find out more: