Alimony and Dowry: Legal Support vs Social Exploitation

by Manvi

"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home."

                                                                                                                      — Eleanor Roosevelt

Alimony, in general terms, refers to the financial assistance that one spouse provides to the other after divorce or separation. It ensures that the spouse who is in the weaker financial position can maintain a minimum standard of living following the separation. Commonly, the husband is required to pay alimony to the wife, considering the high number of housewives or unemployed wives in India. However, if the husband is in a worse financial position at the time of divorce, the wife may be required to pay alimony to her husband as well. Thus, alimony does not create a state of inequality by being gender-specific. 

There are various legal provisions governing alimony in India, which establish it as a law-backed system that cannot be dismissed or casually questioned. These legal provisions include:

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Sections 24 and 25)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 125) 

• Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 

• Indian Divorce Act, 1869 

• Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936

However, alimony has long been in a constant tug-of-war with the dowry system. Dowry refers to the money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to her husband or his family at the time of marriage. It is most common in cultures that are strongly patrilineal and that expect women to reside with or near their husband’s family (patrilocality). Dowries have a long history in Europe, South Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world, including India. Over time, this practice—initially voluntary—turned into a coercive norm. What began as a gift gradually transformed into a demand, often accompanied by harassment and violence if the demand was not met. This evolution has resulted in the social evil we witness today. 

To address this issue at a national level, the Indian Parliament enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which came into force on May 1, 1961. In addition to this Act, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains specific provisions dealing with dowry-related cruelty and death, including Section 304B (Dowry Death) and Section 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives). These provisions are complemented by Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides for a legal presumption in cases of dowry death. If it is shown that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands, the court shall presume that the accused caused the death unless proven otherwise. 

Despite these legal safeguards, dowry continues to exploit the lives of thousands of women in India. In one form or another, society has normalized the practice of dowry, embedding it deeply within marriage rituals and treating it as an unquestioned custom.

The real clash arises when public misunderstanding enters the discussion. Many people who condemn dowry as illegal and socially immoral also argue that alimony is merely “legalized dowry,” since in both cases money is paid by one party to the other. 

They question why, if dowry is illegal, alimony continues to exist.

But this view completely ignores the fundamental difference between the two. Dowry is demanded before or during marriage, whereas alimony is a legal provision granted after separation or divorce.

Alimony is not a measure favouring women; rather, it is intended to support either spouse in overcoming financial hardship after the breakdown of marriage. Dowry, on the other hand, has consistently functioned as an instrument of patriarchy and the subjugation of women. Additionally, the man who takes pride in accepting dowry is often the same man who resists paying alimony, highlighting how patriarchy celebrates entitlement. 

Another common claim is that “only women get alimony.” This directly contradicts the gender-neutral nature of alimony under Indian law, which allows either spouse to claim maintenance to achieve financial independence. 

Similarly, the belief that “dowry is acceptable if given voluntarily” stems from societies that have normalized dowry as an essential ritualistic component of marriage. It is often defended as a cultural practice, even though social pressure frequently makes it coercive rather than voluntary. The argument that “dowry is tradition, so law should not interfere” reflects the belief that personal customs should remain untouched. However, when traditions violate rights or result in the subjugation of others, they must be questioned. In such cases, the government and the law must intervene to dismantle these practices in pursuit of an equal society. The aim must not merely be the welfare of women but the pursuit of a gender-neutral approach that avoids harsh treatment of any individual.

The Shah Bano case (1985) serves as a key example. In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, emphasizing that alimony is a matter of social justice and applies irrespective of religion. However, following political and social backlash, Parliament enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which limited maintenance under personal law. Subsequent judicial interpretations, however, ensured continued financial protection for divorced Muslim women. 

This case demonstrated that alimony is a necessary legal mechanism to ensure the living standards of a spouse after divorce and highlighted how political systems and laws evolve to guarantee rights at every stage of life, both before and after marriage. 

Similarly, recent judicial observations have reignited debates surrounding the dowry laws. One such instance is the tragic death of Atul Subhash, which has sparked renewed discussion on the strictness of India’s dowry laws—laws designed to protect women from harassment, violence, and dowry-related deaths. Nikita accused her husband Subhash and his family of demanding dowry and subjecting her to harassment. The Supreme Court referred to the misuse of such laws as “legal terrorism,” stating that laws should protect, not harm. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore the reality that dowry demands still result in the deaths of thousands of women every year, proving that the problem is far from resolved. 

Therefore, when cultural practices violate rights, perpetuate inequality, or enable the subjugation of individuals, they cease to be traditions and become instruments of oppression. In such circumstances, the intervention of the state and the law is not an intrusion but a necessity—essential to dismantle entrenched injustices and to move society closer to genuine equality.