Prof. (Dr.) Mehak Jonjua
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Praveen Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, establishing an eight-point framework for calculating permanent alimony, arrives at a pivotal moment when India is grappling with the dark undercurrents of matrimonial discord and its sometimes tragic consequences. The judgment, coinciding with the devastating suicide of Bengaluru engineer Atul Subhash, emphasizes the urgent need to address both the financial and emotional dimensions of marital breakdowns. While articulating criteria as specific as social status to career sacrifices, the Court tries to bring in objectivity into what hitherto has been a rather subjective battlefield of divorce proceedings. However, the mathematical formulation of quantifying marital responsibilities raises fundamental questions as to whether matrimonial matters per se can ever be brought down to a formula in respect of justice.
The judgment comes in a society where divorce, once unthinkable and a taboo in Indian society, has come of age as a complex legal and social reality. Legal experts such as Jasmeet Kaur talk of the principle of living on par post-separation with provisions for equal division of assets if the wife has no independent income, but reality is often starkly different from these ideals. In fact, well-meaning though the court’s attempt was to standardize alimony calculations, one must take into account India’s changing social fabric, in which marriages are increasingly caught in a vulnerable space between the traditional obligations and modern aspirations.
This recent judicial intervention, although much-needed guidelines, also inadvertently spotlights the broader crisis in Indian matrimonial law – where the connection of property rights, emotional well-being, and social justice creates a complex web that no single framework, however comprehensive, can fully untangle. As the tragic end of Atul Subhash reminds us, the actual challenge lies not only in fair financial settlements but also in building a legal and social environment that avoids the weaponization of matrimonial laws, thereby safeguarding vulnerable parties from exploitation.
It takes many forms-from the elaboration of prenuptial agreements to strategic divorces timed to maximize benefits-but the phenomenon itself represents deeper issues: materialism, shifting social values, and perhaps most significantly, the persistence of economic inequalities between genders. In such a context, it is appropriate that the court insists on “reasonable needs” rather than matching wealth.
However, the discussions around alimony cannot just be narrowed down to mere avoidance of abuse. The hard fact remains that many women suffer from serious economic inequality following a divorce, not least because they may well have forgone career opportunity in order to devote more time to domestic roles. The challenge is one between valid claims for financial contribution and trying to use a marriage as a route to acquiring capital.
The court commented that alimony claims often appear asymmetrical: increases are requested when ex-spouses become prosperous but denied when fortunes decline. Such a pattern often indicates an opportunistic approach to claims for maintenance and, by this, implies that some of the alimony claims might be motivated more by opportunism than a need to be supported.
Another relevant question to the judicial attitude is about the evolving concept of marriage in contemporary society. As women continue entering the labor force, should not the traditional alimony idea change? The focus now can be rehabilitation support that allows divorced individuals to attain economic independence.
Marriage is also commodified, with further social implications. It makes people cynical about marital relationships and discourages true emotional relations, and it even affects the marriage rate among the young generations because they increasingly become skeptical about the institution of marriage. The court ruling reminds society that marriage cannot be treated as a simple financial transaction.
Looking forward, this move might encourage a more balanced outlook on marriage and divorce. Matrimony would not be considered an avenue for getting rich; rather, couples would be directed towards the creation of actual partnerships founded on mutual respect and shared values. The focus on reasonable needs over wealth equalization could lead to more meaningful discussions about post-divorce rehabilitation and financial independence.
This surplus alimony commercializes marriage, leading to a worrying change in direction from the intent for which the institution of marriage was originally intended. The financial security post-divorce becomes relevant but is not a reason to obfuscate the underlying nature of marriage as being a social and emotional tie. This judgment of the Supreme Court enables the thinking of people in society with respect to marriage and its resolution post-breakup.Alimony should reflect the actual support needs rather than opportunistic pursuits tied to financial fluctuations.
Comments are closed.