When Capability Becomes a Claim

If marriage was once a social institution anchored in interdependence, today it increasingly resembles a litigation-triggering contract, especially in the eyes of many men. And here lies the uncomfortable sequel to the earlier argument: the misuse of marriage and alimony is no longer confined to economically dependent spouses. It now extends, in visible and troubling ways, to highly educated, professionally accomplished, and financially capable women who are fully able to earn but still invoke alimony as an entitlement rather than a safety net.

This is not a moral indictment of women as a class. It is a structural critique of a legal framework that has failed to evolve with social reality. The core question is blunt and unavoidable: When independence exists, should dependency still be legally presumed?

From Protection to Presumption

Alimony laws were drafted in a different India, and indeed, a different world. They assumed:

• Low female workforce participation
• Economic dependence post-marriage
• Social stigma attached to divorced women
• Structural barriers to remarriage and employment 

Those assumptions are eroding rapidly.

According to government labor data, women’s enrollment in higher education has crossed 49% in recent years, and in urban India, a significant proportion of women entering marriage are postgraduate-qualified, professionally employed, and financially independent at the time of marriage. Yet the legal presumption embedded in maintenance law often freezes a woman’s status at the moment of divorce, not her capability over time.

Courts repeatedly observe that “maintenance is not a bounty,” yet the application on the ground often contradicts that principle.

Even the Supreme Court of India has, in multiple judgments, cautioned that alimony cannot be used as a tool for enrichment or as a lifelong pension where no real dependency exists. Still, lower courts frequently err on the side of over-award, fearing accusations of being “anti-woman” rather than being unjust.

The Educated-But-Unemployed Argument

A recurring pattern in contested divorces is worth examining clinically.

An individual may be:

• Highly educated (MBA, engineer, lawyer, doctor)
• Previously employed
• From a financially stable family
• Capable of re-entering the workforce 

Yet at the time of divorce, she claims:

• Temporary unemployment
• Lifestyle parity as an entitlement
• Long-term maintenance despite short marriages 

The law, as it stands, rarely asks the most crucial question:

Is the claimant ‘unable to earn’ or ‘merely unwilling to’? This distinction matters.

Courts often calculate alimony based on the husband’s income while treating the wife’s earning potential as irrelevant. In effect, capability is ignored; dependency is assumed.

This has produced perverse incentives:

• Disincentivizing re-employment
• Encouraging prolonged litigation
• Turning marriage into a low-risk, high-reward financial strategy in extreme cases 

Even a small percentage of such misuse has an outsized impact—because law operates on precedent and fear, not averages.

Short Marriages, Long Liabilities

One of the most corrosive distortions in contemporary alimony practice is the disconnect between marriage duration and financial liability.

There have been cases, acknowledged even by courts, where marriages lasting under two years have resulted in:

• Crore-level settlement demands
• Lifetime monthly maintenance claims
• Protracted litigation exceeding the duration of the marriage itself 

This inversion is what alarms men. It is not marriage they fear. It is irreversible financial exposure without proportional accountability. Unsurprisingly, surveys and social trend analyses show a steady rise in:

• Men delaying marriage
• Men opting out of marriage entirely
• Prenuptial contracts (still legally fragile in India)
• Growing distrust of family courts

This is not misogyny. It is risk aversion shaped by legal asymmetry. Social Justice Must Be Targeted, Not Blind. True social justice is selective, not sentimental. Alimony must protect:

• Women who sacrificed careers for marriage
• Women who raised children full-time
• Women abandoned without economic means
• Women structurally excluded from employment 

But it must not subsidize capable idleness, nor reward strategic withdrawal from work. A welfare law that fails to distinguish between need and choice ceases to be welfare.  It becomes redistribution without rationale.

Practical Reforms: From ‘Emotion’ to ‘Evidence’

If the law is to regain legitimacy, reform must be surgical, not cosmetic. Several measures are both feasible and necessary:

1. First, mandatory income and qualification audits. Courts should assess not only current income but educational credentials, past employment, and realistic earning potential.
    
2. Second, time-bound rehabilitative maintenance, not lifetime entitlement, especially in childless or short-duration marriages.
   
   
3. Third, imputed income doctrine. If a spouse is capable of earning but chooses not to, courts should calculate maintenance as if she were earning at market-aligned rates.
   
   
4. Fourth, strict proportionality to marriage duration. A six-month marriage cannot logically justify decades of financial obligation.
   
   
5. Fifth, penal consequences for suppression of income or assets. False declarations should attract costs, not sympathy.
    
6. Sixth, gender-neutral language and application. Capability-based justice must apply regardless of sex. Equality cannot be one-directional.
   
   
7. Finally, pre-marital financial disclosures and enforceable prenups, aligned with Indian constitutional values, not dismissed reflexively as “un-Indian.”

The Civilizational Question

Marriage, in its civilizational sense, was never meant to be a transaction. Nor was law meant to be a weapon. When protection morphs into presumption, and justice into entitlement, institutions rot quietly from within. A society that claims to celebrate women’s independence must also respect women’s responsibility. Empowerment without accountability is not progress, it is imbalance.

The goal is not to deny alimony. It is to restore its moral and legal purpose.

Because social justice that refuses to distinguish between need and convenience ultimately serves neither women nor men — only litigation. And when marriage itself becomes a ‘perceived liability’ rather than a ‘partnership,’ the institution doesn’t just weaken. It quietly exits the room.

Image (c) istock.com