7 Reasons Why Women Should Stop Asking for Alimony, And Why It’s Not Injustice
Nidhi | Nov 03, 2025, 15:01 IST
Indian marriage
( Image credit : Pexels )
Once meant to protect homemakers, alimony today raises questions about equality and fairness. As women become financially independent, the need for lifelong support from an ex-spouse weakens. This article explores seven logical, law-backed reasons why modern women should stop asking for alimony — not as a denial of justice, but as a step toward genuine empowerment. Backed by real court rulings and India’s evolving legal view, it shows why equality after divorce must mean shared responsibility, not continued dependency.
For generations, alimony was a shield, created to protect women when society denied them education, jobs, and financial independence. Back then, a woman’s survival after divorce often depended entirely on her husband’s income. But that world no longer exists.
Today, women are CEOs, entrepreneurs, government officers, and breadwinners. India’s female workforce participation is steadily rising, and more than 40% of women in urban India are financially independent in some form. Yet, when divorce happens, many still demand alimony - not always out of need, but as a leftover expectation from a system built on old gender roles.
This isn’t about denying justice - it’s about redefining fairness. True equality means freedom from financial dependency, not its continuation through law. If both partners stand as equals in marriage, shouldn’t they also stand equal after it ends?
The concept of alimony came from a time when men were breadwinners and women were homemakers.
Its original purpose was to prevent women from becoming destitute after divorce — not to serve as a lifelong entitlement. In today’s world, when both partners are educated and financially capable, this logic no longer holds.
In the case of Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal (2000), the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that a woman who is qualified and capable of earning should not sit idle and claim maintenance.
When women seek alimony despite being employable, it unintentionally strengthens the stereotype that women cannot sustain themselves without male support.
True empowerment means self-reliance - not continuing a financial link with an ex-spouse. The concept of alimony must evolve from compensation to temporary transition support, only where absolutely necessary.
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows for “reasonable support” - not lifelong dependency.
Marriage today is a partnership, not an economic arrangement where one earns and the other depends.
In most households, both partners contribute — one may earn, the other may manage the home, or both may work. When both give and both gain, separation should mean equal responsibility for rebuilding life, not burdening one side with permanent payments.
The Supreme Court has emphasized in multiple judgments that maintenance should be “need-based, not status-based.”
While laws rightly protect women’s rights, they should not create injustice for men.
A man supporting his children is fair - but supporting an independent ex-wife indefinitely is not. In many cases, alimony becomes a tool for prolonged litigation or emotional leverage rather than genuine financial relief.
In Kavita Chandhok vs Ashok Chandhok (2017), the Delhi High Court clarified that maintenance is not a means of enrichment but a measure for survival.
Divorce signifies two individuals choosing separate lives. Treating it as a financial punishment for one partner goes against the spirit of mutual closure.
Unreasonable alimony claims often turn divorce into a battle of retribution rather than a step toward peace and independence.
In Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that maintenance should not be excessive or punitive — it should only ensure basic sustenance where genuine need exists.
Long-term empowerment comes from earning, not entitlement.
Instead of lifelong alimony, short-term financial assistance or skill-building support helps women rebuild their professional and emotional lives. It upholds dignity — the ability to stand independently rather than rely on an ex-spouse’s income.
In Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors vs The State & Anr (2010), the Delhi High Court observed that if both spouses are well-qualified and capable of earning, neither can demand to be maintained indefinitely by the other.
Equality is not only about rights — it’s about accountability too.
If both partners share equal status in marriage, they must share equal responsibility after it ends. Alimony should not be a gender-based privilege but a neutral support system for whoever truly needs it.
In Manish Jain vs Akanksha Jain (2017), the Supreme Court reinforced that permanent alimony is not a right but a relief meant only for those unable to maintain themselves.
Today, women are CEOs, entrepreneurs, government officers, and breadwinners. India’s female workforce participation is steadily rising, and more than 40% of women in urban India are financially independent in some form. Yet, when divorce happens, many still demand alimony - not always out of need, but as a leftover expectation from a system built on old gender roles.
This isn’t about denying justice - it’s about redefining fairness. True equality means freedom from financial dependency, not its continuation through law. If both partners stand as equals in marriage, shouldn’t they also stand equal after it ends?
1. Alimony Was Designed for Financial Dependence: Not Equality
Alimony
( Image credit : Pexels )
Its original purpose was to prevent women from becoming destitute after divorce — not to serve as a lifelong entitlement. In today’s world, when both partners are educated and financially capable, this logic no longer holds.
In the case of Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal (2000), the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that a woman who is qualified and capable of earning should not sit idle and claim maintenance.
2. It Reinforces Economic Dependency Instead of Empowerment
Modern women
( Image credit : Freepik )
True empowerment means self-reliance - not continuing a financial link with an ex-spouse. The concept of alimony must evolve from compensation to temporary transition support, only where absolutely necessary.
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows for “reasonable support” - not lifelong dependency.
3. Both Partners Contribute to Marriage: Financially and Emotionally
marriage
( Image credit : Freepik )
In most households, both partners contribute — one may earn, the other may manage the home, or both may work. When both give and both gain, separation should mean equal responsibility for rebuilding life, not burdening one side with permanent payments.
The Supreme Court has emphasized in multiple judgments that maintenance should be “need-based, not status-based.”
4. It Can Lead to Unfair Financial Burden on Men
Man emotional
( Image credit : Pexels )
A man supporting his children is fair - but supporting an independent ex-wife indefinitely is not. In many cases, alimony becomes a tool for prolonged litigation or emotional leverage rather than genuine financial relief.
In Kavita Chandhok vs Ashok Chandhok (2017), the Delhi High Court clarified that maintenance is not a means of enrichment but a measure for survival.
5. Divorce Is Not a Punishment: It’s a Mutual End to a Relationship
Detachment
( Image credit : Freepik )
Unreasonable alimony claims often turn divorce into a battle of retribution rather than a step toward peace and independence.
In Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that maintenance should not be excessive or punitive — it should only ensure basic sustenance where genuine need exists.
6. Encouraging Skill and Employment Is Better Than Permanent Support
Instead of lifelong alimony, short-term financial assistance or skill-building support helps women rebuild their professional and emotional lives. It upholds dignity — the ability to stand independently rather than rely on an ex-spouse’s income.
In Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors vs The State & Anr (2010), the Delhi High Court observed that if both spouses are well-qualified and capable of earning, neither can demand to be maintained indefinitely by the other.
7. Equality Before Law Means Equal Responsibility After Marriage
Indian Law
( Image credit : Freepik )
Equality is not only about rights — it’s about accountability too.
If both partners share equal status in marriage, they must share equal responsibility after it ends. Alimony should not be a gender-based privilege but a neutral support system for whoever truly needs it.
In Manish Jain vs Akanksha Jain (2017), the Supreme Court reinforced that permanent alimony is not a right but a relief meant only for those unable to maintain themselves.