REVISITING MAINTENANCE LAW IN INDIA : DEPENDENCY GENDER AND EQUALITY

ABSTRACT

In India, maintenance laws play a crucial role at the crossroads of family law and social justice. These laws aim to prevent financial hardship and abandonment within families. They have historically been influenced by gendered views that see women as dependents and men as the main breadwinners. As socio-economic conditions change, more women join the workforce, and constitutional mandates for equality strengthen, the ongoing validity of these views raises serious constitutional issues. This article explores whether maintenance laws in India are truly gender-neutral in both law and practice. Through examining statutory provisions across personal laws, constitutional principles, and shifting judicial interpretations, the paper argues that while Indian courts have made gradual strides toward neutrality, the legislative framework still upholds deep-rooted gender binaries. The article concludes that a shift from a formal idea of gender neutrality to a model that focuses on dependency and context is needed to align social protection with constitutional equality.

INTRODUCTION

In Indian family law, maintenance is one of the most contentious matters. It is vital in tackling financial vulnerability that arises from marital breakdowns and family neglect. Maintenance law has traditionally been justified as a way to protect women, based on the idea that husbands are the primary earners and wives depend financially on them. While this assumption once mirrored social realities, today’s Indian society is more complex. Many households have dual incomes, women often take on the role of primary earners, and men increasingly face unemployment or take on caregiving roles.

This changing social context leads to a key legal question: are India’s maintenance laws truly gender-neutral, or do they simply update a framework that remains inherently gendered? This issue involves not just whether men can seek maintenance in certain situations, but also how the law understands dependency and obligation in relation to constitutional equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.1

This article looks at the gendered assumptions behind maintenance laws within both personal and secular legal frameworks and assesses the judiciary’s role in shaping maintenance laws. It argues that while courts have tried to introduce neutrality through interpretation, comprehensive legislative reform is still needed to balance social justice goals with the principle of real equality.

CONCEPT AND OBJECTIVE OF MAINTENANCE

Maintenance is a key aspect of Indian family law. It serves as a legal tool to ease economic hardship caused by family relationships. At its core, the idea of maintenance acknowledges that certain family members, due to their marital status, caregiving responsibilities, age, or disability, may struggle to support themselves and need financial help. The duty to provide maintenance is not meant to punish but rather is rooted in social welfare, fairness, and respect.

The Supreme Court of India has consistently viewed maintenance provisions as instruments of social justice, not merely legal rights.2In Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, the Court noted that maintenance laws aim to prevent poverty and homelessness by placing responsibility on those who can afford to support dependents who cannot care for themselves. This view frames maintenance within a broader constitutional context, particularly Articles 14, 15(3), and 39 of the Constitution of India, which highlight equality under the law, protective measures for women, and the State’s duty to ensure adequate means of livelihood.3

Historically, the concept of maintenance developed to address the social and economic challenges faced in marriage. Limited access to formal jobs, lack of property rights, and the expectation of unpaid domestic work made women particularly vulnerable after a marriage ended. Maintenance law thus arose as a way to counter these structural inequalities. However, this historical context has led to a gendered view of maintenance, where laws and decisions often assume wives are dependent and husbands are providers.

From a legal standpoint, maintenance serves a redistributive function. It understands that marriage goes beyond a private contract; it is a socio-economic partnership where one spouse may sacrifice career prospects and earning potential, thus justifying financial support after separation. This perspective aligns maintenance with the idea of substantive equality, which calls for legal outcomes to consider real disadvantages rather than just formal equality.

At the same time, maintenance law should balance social support and fairness. The Supreme Court has warned against automatic or mechanical grants of maintenance without considering the actual circumstances. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, the Court stressed that while maintenance is a legal right, determining it must take into account factors like the standard of living during marriage, the incomes and liabilities of both parties, and the true needs of the claimant.4 This shows a judicial effort to move beyond rigid assumptions and adopt an approach that considers the context.

The support-focused nature of maintenance is further highlighted by the secular remedy found in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.5 This provision goes beyond personal laws and has been upheld as a tool for advancing social justice.6 However, limiting spousal claims under this provision to wives reflects ongoing gender assumptions that link dependency with gender.

In modern India, the foundational ideas around maintenance are under increasing pressure. Changes in family structures, a rise in female workforce participation, and shifting perceptions of marriage challenge the validity of traditional gender-based assumptions. As dependency becomes more fluid and situation-based, the goal of maintenance needs revaluation to ensure it aligns with constitutional equality and social realities. The key question is not whether maintenance should exist, but if it’s understanding adequately reflects dependency as a factual condition rather than a gendered status.

MAINTENANCE UNDER DIFFERENT LEGAL REGIMES

Indian maintenance law involves a mix of personal law statutes and secular legal provisions. While these systems differ in their foundations, they reflect how maintenance responsibilities have historically been shaped by gender assumptions.

MAINTENANCE UNDER HINDU LAW

Hindu law primarily regulates maintenance through the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows either spouse to seek maintenance during ongoing proceedings if they do not have enough independent income. Similarly, Section 25 provides for permanent alimony upon the conclusion of matrimonial proceedings. At first glance, these provisions seem gender-neutral.7

However, a different view appears under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 18 of the Act grants a legal right to maintenance only for the wife. Although the Act guarantees maintenance for children and elderly parents regardless of gender, spousal maintenance under this law remains unequal.8 This contradiction in Hindu law shows the tension between formal neutrality in marriage laws and actual gender bias in maintenance rights.

MAINTENANCE UNDER MUSLIM LAW

For Muslim personal law, a husband’s duty to maintain his wife typically lasts only during marriage and the iddat period after divorce. This limited view was initially reinforced by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.9

The scope of this obligation widened significantly through judicial interpretation. In Danial Latifi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim husband must make a reasonable and fair provision for the divorced wife’s future during the iddat period.10 Despite this progressive view, the law still focuses on gender and does not recognize a reciprocal maintenance right for husbands.

MAINTENANCE UNDER CHRISTIAN LAW

Christian personal law relies on the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for maintenance. Sections 36 and 37 of the Act provide for interim and permanent alimony only for wives.11 These provisions stem from colonial-era beliefs in female economic dependency and have largely remained unchanged. The ongoing exclusion of husbands from maintenance rights in Christian law reflects persistent gendered assumptions.

MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, offers a secular and summary remedy for maintenance to wives, children, and parents, regardless of religion.12 The Supreme Court views this provision as a measure of social justice that crosses personal law boundaries.

Still, the provision restricts spousal maintenance claims to wives, reinforcing a gendered view of dependency, even within a secular legal framework. The exclusion of husbands from Section 125 continues to associate maintenance entitlement with gender.

GENDERED ASSUMPTIONS IN MAINTENANCE LAW

Indian maintenance law has historically been based on gendered assumptions about economic capability and family roles. The traditional view often sees the husband as the primary earner and the wife as economically dependent. This perspective has heavily influenced both law creation and judicial reasoning. While these assumptions once matched societal norms, applying them uncritically today raises serious constitutional issues in contemporary India.
Maintenance laws originated as tools for social protection, especially for women who became economically vulnerable due to structural issues like limited education access, exclusion from formal jobs, and the expectation of unpaid domestic work. However, the lasting presence of these assumptions has led to a legal system that often confuses gender with dependency, undermining the constitutional promise of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Protective discrimination under Article 15(3) of the Constitution allows the State to implement special provisions for women. However, constitutional laws have clarified that such protection should aim for substantial equality rather than reinforce stereotypes. When maintenance laws assume incapacity or dependency purely based on gender, they risk perpetuating the very inequalities they meant to address. This issue becomes especially clear in cases involving economically independent women or men taking on caregiving roles.
Moreover, rigid gender assumptions do not reflect the socio-economic diversity found in Indian society. Urbanisation, the increasing presence of women in the workforce, and shifting family structures have significantly altered the economic dynamics of marriage. In many homes, women now contribute equally or more to household income while men may face unemployment, illness, or interruptions to their careers due to caregiving. A maintenance system that ignores these realities risks unfair results and undermines the effectiveness of family law as a tool for social justice.

Thus, the main challenge is not to eliminate maintenance as a protective measure but to reconceptualize it in a way that sees dependency as a factual and contextual state rather than a gendered label.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND CHANGING STANDARDS

The judiciary has played an important role in reshaping maintenance law to reflect changing social realities and constitutional principles. Indian courts view maintenance primarily as a matter of social justice. The main goal is to protect the dignity of the dependent spouse and prevent economic hardship.
In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, the Supreme Court pointed out that delays in maintenance cases defeat the purpose of the law.13 Prolonged legal battles increase economic vulnerability and harm personal dignity. The Court reaffirmed that maintenance should be viewed as a legal right based on the constitutional principles of dignity and equality, not as an act of charity.

A notable development is evident in Rajnesh v. Neha, where the Supreme Court established comprehensive guidelines for assessing maintenance.14 These guidelines require both parties to disclose their finances and stress real earning potential rather than theoretical income. The Court acknowledged the need for consistency and transparency in maintenance decisions, which had often been characterized by ad hoc and stereotype-driven methods.

Judicial reasoning is increasingly reflecting the view that maintenance entitlement cannot be unquestioningly granted or absolute. Some High Courts have denied maintenance to spouses who can earn but choose not to, arguing that maintenance should not lead to unjust enrichment. Such rulings show a judicial effort to evaluate actual dependency rather than assume it.

However, this judicial progress has its limitations. Courts often have to balance genuine hardship against preventing reinforced dependency. The lack of clear legislative guidance on
gender neutrality puts significant pressure on judicial discretion, leading to varying approaches across different courts. Although some progressive rulings suggest a shift toward functional neutrality, they continue to be limited by legal frameworks that still reinforce gendered assumptions.

Judicial interpretations are important, but they cannot replace the need for comprehensive legislative reform. Courts work within the confines of existing laws, and without clear recognition of dependency-based maintenance, judicial improvements risk being disjointed and uncertain.

EMERGING TRENDS TOWARD FUNCTIONAL NEUTRALITY

Recent judicial trends show a cautious shift toward functional neutrality in handling maintenance claims. Courts are gradually moving away from purely gender-based assumptions and starting to consider factors like earning potential, standard of living during marriage, age, health, and caregiving responsibilities. This change indicates a growing acknowledgment that economic dependency is not solely tied to gender.

The introduction of financial disclosure requirements has increased transparency and reduced opportunities for false or exaggerated claims. By requiring both parties to reveal their income, assets, and debts, courts can better evaluate genuine needs and ensure fair outcomes. These measures align maintenance assessments more with factual dependency rather than just marital status or gender identity.

Despite these shifts, the move toward neutrality is still uneven and mostly influenced by judicial interpretation. Personal laws continue to show gender-specific entitlements, and secular remedies like Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure maintain a gendered structure for claimants. Thus, functional neutrality appears more as an emerging judicial trend than a settled legal principle.

The absence of thorough legislative reform also raises concerns about predictability and consistency. Different judicial responses to similar cases undermine equal protection principles and highlight the challenges of relying solely on judicial innovation. Without a cohesive legal framework that recognizes dependency as the main criterion for maintenance, neutrality remains inconsistent.

Meaningful progress towards gender neutrality in maintenance law calls for legislative changes that formalize dependency-based assessments while maintaining the social welfare goals of maintenance provisions.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Maintenance laws in India show a complex and often uneasy tension between social justice and constitutional equality. Traditionally seen as protective measures for economically vulnerable spouses—mostly women—these laws were shaped by socio-economic conditions that no longer consistently apply. This paper shows that while maintenance law still plays a key welfare role, it remains structured and applied based on gendered assumptions that link dependency with womanhood and economic strength with manhood.

The analysis indicates that Indian courts have significantly influenced maintenance law to better reflect changing social realities. By focusing on earning capacity, financial disclosure, and context-sensitive evaluations of dependency, the judiciary has worked to shift maintenance law from strict gender binaries to a more neutral approach. Judgments like Rajnesh v. Neha reflect a conscious effort by judges to bring more uniformity, transparency, and fairness to maintenance decisions. However, these changes are largely based on interpretation and continue to operate within legal frameworks that have gender-specific biases.

The ongoing presence of gender-specific maintenance provisions raises important constitutional issues. While Article 15(3) of the Constitution allows for protective measures for women, such protections must be reassessed in light of evolving ideas about substantive equality. Measures that do not consider modern socio-economic realities risk reinforcing
dependency instead of alleviating disadvantage. A legal framework that assumes dependency solely based on gender could undermine individual autonomy and the constitutional promise of equality under Article 14.

This paper does not call for the removal of maintenance as a social welfare tool. On the contrary, maintenance is essential for tackling economic inequality linked to marital relationships, unpaid domestic work, and caregiving tasks. Its continued legitimacy relies on its capability to adapt to a society where dependency is based on context rather than gender.
Maintenance law must evolve from simply protecting one gender to supporting individuals who are demonstrably and factually dependent.

In light of these findings, legislative reform becomes crucial. First, maintenance provisions across personal laws should be aligned with constitutional principles of equality through gender-neutral language that focuses on economic dependency, earning ability, and caregiving duties. Second, legal recognition of unpaid domestic work and career sacrifices would more accurately reflect the economic realities of marriage. Third, procedural measures like mandatory financial disclosure and time-bound decisions should be codified instead of relying solely on judicial discretion.

Lastly, while the judiciary must continue to balance social protection with fairness, judicial discretion cannot replace principled legislative reform. As it stands, Indian maintenance law cannot be seen as truly gender-neutral. Despite judicial interpretations introducing elements of neutrality, the underlying legal framework is still embedded in gendered assumptions that conflict with constitutional equality and modern societal realities. A revamped maintenance system centered on dependency, rather than gender, offers the clearest way forward, ensuring that maintenance law remains both socially just and constitutionally sound.

BIBLIOGRAPHY/ REFERENCES

CASE LAWS

• Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 (India).

• Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 (India).

• Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 (India).

• Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740 (India).

• Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (India).

STATUTES

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 125 (India).

• The Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, §§ 24-25 (India).

• The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, No. 78 of 1956, § 18 (India).

• The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, No. 25 of 1986 (India).

• The Indian Divorce Act, No. 4 of 1869, §§ 36-37 (India).

CONSTITUTION

• India Const. arts. 14, 15(3), 39.