International Comparative Studies
Comparative studies have helped reveal changes that could be considered. For instance, Saxena's 2021 article in the International Journal of Law and Policy Research compares Indian alimony frameworks with others-similarly known and most notably found in Lifetime Maintenance in the UK, in the clean break in Canada, or the property settlement in Australia.1
Gaps in Current Literature
A variety of research studies have identified several voids in the literature:
- Detailed empirical studies of economic impact after the long term
- Examination of intersectionality in deciding cases of alimony
- More detailed data about the success rate in enforcement
- Alternative arrangement of support has to be dug deeper.
It reflects both an extremely rich scholarly discourse concerning economic inequalities in alimony in India and significant gaps in prevailing understanding. Literature in use today points out the complex interplay between legal frameworks, social realities, and economic justice in the context of alimony; thus, suggesting the need for both theoretical development and practical reforms in this area.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND JURISPRUDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
The alimony awards that form part of Indian jurisprudence are really an interlacing of personal laws, secular legislation, and constitutional principles. It represents in a way the ongoing tension between the obligations traditionally held by families and modern notions of economic justice. In India, alimony awards between the couple who are Hindus are governed primarily by Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2 This provision has enabled courts to direct either of the spouses to pay maintenance and support to the other. For this reason, the income, property, and total financial ability of the respondent have to be taken into consideration. In this regard, legislative intent as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar,3 is that economic inequality should not drive the dependent spouse to bankruptcy after the divorce.
This legislation introduced greater layers of financial security by codifying several forms of economic abuse and providing redress through pecuniary relief. Such a development saw the issues of economic inequalities within marriages take on a different character, such that recognition was accorded to financial dependence as not holding only negative connotations but actually often perpetuating cycles of abuse and inequality. Section 20 of the Act,4 in particular, provides relief of a monetary nature, transcending basic maintenance to compensation for loss suffered on account of domestic violence, including earning opportunities.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND EVOLUTION
The approach of the Supreme Court towards determining alimony has undergone a sea change over the last decades, as can be seen in landmark judgments that have shaped the contemporary understanding of economic justice in matrimonial matters. In Rajnesh v. Neha,5 the Supreme Court framed elaborate standards for deciding upon maintenance by balancing both the qualifications for education with professional preferences and the standards of living enjoyed during marriage between the two parties. This judgment is quite different from the previous judgments earlier mainly focused on basic necessity-based calculations.
The concept of "reasonable needs" was created in the amount of maintenance calculable through Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs District Judge Dehradun,6 where it was more than mere subsistence. Subsequent judgments have made it even more pronounced by giving special emphasis to cases where women had forsaken their careers due to family responsibilities. This reasoning is a step forward in Courts being able to recognize non-monetary contributions towards the economy of a family, such as care for children and household maintenance.
CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS AND GENDER JUSTICE
The constitutional dispensation, especially Articles 14 and 15,7 have in fact also played an important role in shaping the judicial jurisprudence concerning maintenance laws. In Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (2015),8 the Supreme Court has categorically held that the doctrines of maintenance laws must be interpreted within the ambit of constitutional provisions guaranteeing equality and dignity. This constitutional perspective has made the courts able and willing to adopt a more subtle understanding of economic disparities-one that recognized formal equality in law had to be supplemented by substantive equality in outcomes.
The confluence of personal laws with constitutional precepts has resulted in dynamic jurisprudence that has increasingly focused on gender justice in economic matters. The judgment Danial Latifi vs. Union of India,9 upheld the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986,10 but interpreted that it should ensure reasonable and fair provision for Muslim women after divorce. It is an outstanding example of the judicial approach to reconciliation of personal laws with the principles of economic justice provided under the Constitution.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION AND CHALLENGES
Indeed, a prima facie appraisal shows great practical work that characterizes the awards made into the concept of alimony that have immense economic issues being debated through courts when looking toward bringing about real justice, like others concerning self-employment or indirect source earners as this quantum often falls between heavy seas. By some indications on guidelines drawn in by Supreme Court in case Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury,11 a possible correct determination including, directly through lifestyle etc and/or property etc also serves some degree of inference upon income indirectly.
Thus, enforcement mechanisms for alimony orders remain a major concern, despite legislative provisions under Section 125 CrPC and several personal laws. While electronic payment systems along with stricter enforcement measures offered by the Family Courts Act may show slight improvement in this regard, much remains to be done. In Kiran Bala v. Rajiv Kwatra (2020),12 the Delhi High Court demonstrated the liveliness in directing a corpus fund to be kept separate for future payment towards maintenance by making an effort to tackle the difficulties of enforcement.
TRENDS AND FUTURE SCOPE
Judicial trends lately have been aligned more to the convergences in orders regarding the modality for computing maintenance, leaving extra latitude on grounds to differ in different cases. The Supreme Court in Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan13 accordingly emphasized interim maintenance, both with an appreciation of the immediate economic vulnerabilities of the matrimonial dispute. The courts have also developed to take into consideration the requirement of the quantum of maintenance being given to the recipient to allow her to lead a lifestyle reasonably comparable to what she had during marriage, as found in Manish Jain vs. Akanksha Jain.14
A very important development is the trend towards adding mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution to maintenance disputes.
Footnotes
1 Priya Saxena, Comparative Analysis of Maintenance Laws: India and Common Law Jurisdictions, 15 Int'l J.L. & Pol'y Rsch. 78, 78-95 (2021).
2 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 § 25.
3 Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 7 SCC 395.
4 The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 § 20.
5 Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
6 Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7.
7 The Constitution of India, 1950, art. 14, 15.
8 Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705.
9 Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740.
10 The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
11 Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, (2017) 14 SCC 758.
12 Kiran Bala v. Rajiv Kwatra, (2020) 273 DLT 456 (Del.).
13 Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303.
14 Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2022) 8 SCC 451.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
