In India’s relentlessly fast news cycle, certain stories become lightning rods for public opinion, especially when they involve alimony or maintenance payments to women after divorce or separation. A few high-profile cases, often involving celebrities or affluent couples, dominate headlines, shaping public perception that maintenance laws overwhelmingly favour women, turning them into supposed beneficiaries of “legal windfalls.”

However, this perception is not only misleading, it actively obscures the daily realities of thousands of women left destitute when husbands refuse to comply with court-ordered maintenance.

Analysing the Jurisprudence

The legal framework for maintenance in India is designed to protect vulnerable and dependent individuals. Under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Section 144 allows a magistrate to order monthly maintenance for a wife, children, or parents who are unable to support themselves. This provision mirrors the former Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Similarly, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, through Sections 24 and 25, enables a spouse without sufficient independent income to claim both interim and permanent alimony. Several other personal law statutes, such as the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, and the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, collectively aim to provide financial security and subsistence to dependents.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai clarified that maintenance is a right protecting dignity, not merely livelihood. In Rajnesh v. Neha and Ors, the Supreme Court sought to standardise maintenance proceedings by mandating full disclosure of income and assets, providing for adjustments when multiple cases overlap, ensuring prompt enforcement of maintenance orders, and streamlining procedures to prevent delays. These directions aimed to uphold transparency and fairness across cases.

Two Women, Two Verdicts

Yet, these progressive principles are inconsistently applied across courts, creating two vastly unequal realities.

A case from Dhanbad, Reena Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, highlights the plight of Reena, a woman who endured severe neglect that included denial of basic access to a washroom, cooking facilities, and even medical care after a miscarriage. She approached the Family Court for justice and was granted a meagre ₹10,000 per month in maintenance, with the court emphasising that “survival is not enough,” and true sustenance must be dignified.

In Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, a high-profile alimony dispute was settled by the Supreme Court, which rejected a ₹12 crore demand in favour of granting the MBA-qualified wife a Mumbai flat valued at around ₹4 crore. The decision emphasised financial independence and balanced fair compensation with realistic expectations, bringing a dignified and self-reliant resolution to the eight-year marriage conflict.

In Vimla Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the judiciary had set important precedents by affirming that maintenance provisions are a social justice measure to protect the vulnerable. However, cherry-picked judgments are sensationalised, and reports often focus on lavish alimony packages replete with luxury assets. The disproportionate attention to such cases fosters the public belief that maintenance is an extractive tool rather than a survival mechanism.

The Enforcement Gap for Maintenance

India’s maintenance laws form the foundation of its social justice system, designed to offer swift, effective, and accessible protection against the destitution of vulnerable spouses. Far from being simple financial transactions, these laws are meant to uphold dignity and provide a vital safeguard against sudden economic hardships.

This doctrine has been moulded through prominent judgments like the Shah Bano Case, which upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, affirming the provision's secular nature and broad applicability. Yet, for countless women, this legal guarantee remains a promise on paper, a right that exists in theory but not in practice due to the procedural realities of the Indian judicial system.

In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, the Supreme Court strongly criticised delays in maintenance cases, stating that “a wife, who is entitled to maintenance, cannot be compelled to litigate endlessly.” Despite this, cases continue for years, with recovery proceedings stalling due to bureaucratic inertia or the husband’s ability to shield assets.

In another case, Anjali Singh v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court directed a Family Court to conclude a pending maintenance case within six months, characterising undue delays as a “denial of justice.” The path to justice does not end with a court order, as enforcing it is often even harder.

Under Section 125(3) of the CrPC (now Section 144(3) of the BNSS), dues can be recovered through a warrant, much like the collection of fines. However, a critical procedural barrier is the one-year limitation period to apply for this warrant, which can result in the loss of arrears for those lacking consistent legal support.

Disparity in Interpretation Between Lower Courts and Supreme Court

Within India’s complex justice system, maintenance laws present a paradox. Though meant to protect the vulnerable, their application often resembles a lottery, where outcomes depend more on the court’s level than the case’s merits. A woman seeking support in a lower court may face a rigid, minimal award, while the Supreme Court’s progressive rulings could offer more substantial relief.

This stark contrast between the apex court’s interpretation and the lower judiciary’s practice creates a significant justice delivery gap. The Supreme Court has embraced the role of a judicial reformer, expanding maintenance law to reflect modern social realities. Its rulings have moved from a basic needs framework to a rights-based approach, emphasising financial dignity and equality.

The case of Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan highlights this shift. The Calcutta High Court’s modest alimony award of ₹20,000 with slow increments was significantly raised by the Supreme Court in May 2025 to ₹50,000, with more frequent inflation adjustments. The ruling emphasised that maintenance must “reasonably secure her future” amid rising living costs.

The case of N. Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas also tackled a critical legal loophole. The Supreme Court held that a woman can claim maintenance from her second husband even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved and the second marriage was technically void. The judgment made clear that a man who knowingly enters a second marriage cannot escape his moral and legal responsibilities. This ruling closed a gap that previously allowed some men to exploit and abandon women without facing financial accountability.

Despite the Supreme Court’s clear and progressive directives, a glaring disparity remains in how High Courts and Family Courts apply these principles. These inconsistencies often result in unpredictability and uncertainty, ultimately undermining the intent of the legislation.

Debates over whether an earning or qualified wife is entitled to maintenance have led to conflicting rulings at the High Court level, with real consequences for those involved. In Megha Khetrapal v. Rajat Kapoor, the Delhi High Court denied interim maintenance to a highly educated wife with a history of employment, citing evidence of a deliberate “mala fide job-avoidance strategy,” including WhatsApp messages. The court held that maintenance is not intended to encourage idleness.

However, in July 2025, the same court granted maintenance to another highly qualified but unemployed wife, emphasising that professional qualifications alone do not disqualify her from support while she seeks gainful employment, especially where there is no evidence of wilful avoidance.

Similarly, the Bombay High Court in SKPS v. PSS reinforced a balanced approach, ruling that a wife with an independent income may still be entitled to maintenance if her earnings do not sustain the marital lifestyle. Instances such as the Rakhi Sadhukhan decision, where alimony was enhanced by the Supreme Court following the High Court’s award, also exemplify such discrepancies.

Justice Beyond the Headlines

The justice delivery gap within India’s maintenance framework is a challenge, yet it is not beyond remedy. The dissonance between the Supreme Court’s progressive vision and the ground realities of lower courts fosters unpredictability, dilutes the law’s purpose, and prolongs hardship for vulnerable individuals.

The transformation from a rigid, rule-bound interpretation to a flexible, purpose-driven approach is gradually gaining momentum. A key amendment in the BNSS introduces a provision mandating that applications for interim maintenance be disposed of “as far as possible” within 60 days from the date of service of notice.

This move codifies the urgency the Supreme Court has long emphasised, turning a judicial guideline into a binding statutory requirement. Additionally, the BNSS strengthens enforcement by imposing stricter penalties for non-compliance. Magistrates are empowered to issue warrants and impose imprisonment of up to one month for each month of default, with the possibility of extension in cases of repeated violations.

Judicial reforms introduced through landmark cases such as Rajnesh v. Neha and Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, coupled with legislative progress like the BNSS, are laying the groundwork for a more equitable system. However, for these changes to truly take root, they must be supported by sustained judicial training, the formal adoption of fair practices, and concerted efforts to dismantle the social and economic barriers that hinder access to justice.

Only when the promise of dignity and financial security is reliably delivered at every level of the judiciary can the justice delivery gap be genuinely bridged, ensuring that maintenance laws fulfil their fundamental purpose of protecting dignity and security for those who need it most.

Path to Consistency

Ultimately, the wide disparity in how courts approach maintenance and alimony cases is not merely an administrative issue but a matter of social justice. While several pronouncements of the Supreme Court have set important precedents, their inconsistent application continues to create inequitable and unpredictable outcomes for individuals and families.

To truly bridge this gap, the Court has the power to act decisively. By leveraging the Family Courts Act of 1984, it can issue comprehensive, binding guidelines that compel a structured, uniform approach.

These new guidelines must require judges to consider specific, verifiable factors, not just the income and assets of each party but also their liabilities and the critical responsibilities of child custody and parental care. Furthermore, the Court can address a key source of legal ambiguity by providing a clear circular on the “standard of living.”

Instead of leaving this phrase open to subjective interpretation, the circular could establish objective metrics, such as household expenses, travel history, and children’s educational needs, transforming a vague concept into an evidence-based evaluation.

By building this clear and structured framework, the Court can ensure that maintenance and alimony awards are not only fair and consistent but also truly reflect the law’s intent to provide social justice. This framework must also be regularly reviewed and updated to remain relevant, adapting to evolving social norms and economic realities.

Aarush Bharadwaj and Mahima Mathur

Get Swarajya in your inbox.