Who Bears The Cost Of Divorce?

Posted: September 24, 2010

Is irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a cause for divorce really the panacea it is being made out to be?

By Saptarshi Mandal

Saptarshi Mandal is a human rights lawyer and researcher working with the Multiple Action Research Group (MARG), New Delhi. He works on issues of gender, caste, sexuality and disability.




For decades, law makers and courts in India have stressed notions of ‘sanctity of marriage’ and ‘family as the basic unit of society’; suddenly, the focus seems to have shifted to ‘how to end marriages smoothly’.

I’m talking about the Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Bill being introduced in the next session of Parliament, which seeks to amend divorce procedures for those getting married under the Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage Act (civil marriages). Currently, there are two ways of getting a divorce in India. One is where both husband and wife reach a consensus that the marriage is no longer working out and that they want to end the marriage by mutual consent. Alternatively, one party has to provide and prove a specific cause for divorce such as that the other was mentally or physically cruel, deserted him/her, committed adultery or that the husband is impotent.

The new Bill seeks to introduce one more way of getting a divorce, whereby either of the parties would be able to ask for divorce on the grounds of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”. Thus, in marriages where only one party feels the need to end the marriage, he/she can ask for a divorce without having to prove that the other has committed a matrimonial offence like cruelty or desertion.

Are Wives Really Equal? 

The Bill is being welcomed by many as a progressive measure that would allow people to extricate themselves easily from bad marriages. Where one party wants a divorce and the other does not, the latter would no longer be able to harass the one seeking the divorce by not appearing in court for hearings or prolonging the process by other means. The Supreme Court and the Law Commission are also in favor of granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, provided there are “adequate financial arrangements” for the parties.

But, even as the proposed amendment seeks to make the process of ending marriages less protracted, less cumbersome and less painful, we need to ask at what cost is it being done? And who is more likely to pay this price? All the views and arguments in favor of the amendment mentioned above are based on two assumptions. One, that men and women are equally placed in a marriage. And two, that all women are similarly placed with respect to economic independence.

 All the views and arguments in favor of the amendment mentioned above are based on two assumptions. One, that men and women are equally placed in a marriage. And two, that all women are similarly placed with respect to economic independence.

Broadly speaking, marriage in a society like India is anything but equal. In most cases, it is the husband who leads decision-making in many areas. In a typical situation where the husband wants a divorce, and the wife does not, he has to either prove that the wife is at fault for having committed cruelty, adultery, desertion etc. or reach a “settlement” with the wife whereby they can file for a divorce by mutual consent. This gives the wife the bargaining position to at least get the husband to pay her a lump sum of money in return for agreeing to the divorce, so that she is not left without any economic security.

Which brings us to the second question – of the economic resources available to the wife after divorce. In most marriages, while the contribution of the husband is primarily economic, wives contribute in non-economic terms by taking care of the household, the children and the elderly. Many have never worked or have cut short their own careers to focus on children. But at the time of divorce, while the economic contribution of the husband to the marriage is taken in to consideration, the non-economic contribution made by the wife is not.

Worse off after divorce

Thus, the monetary support that women get from their husbands at the time of divorce is highly disproportionate to their contribution to the marriage. Women who are economically independent (Read, Divorced Women In The Indian Workplace), or who have the support of parents and brothers are not affected as much. But women, who have been married for a long time, who have been home makers or who do not have the support of their natal families, are left economically worse off after the divorce. Hence, the bargaining position that wives currently have is extremely crucial to ensure their economic security post-divorce. The proposed amendment seeks to do away with this bargaining position, thus weakening her position further in a relationship which is already based on unequal terms.

The Bill prepared by the government has a provision, whereby if the husband files for divorce, the wife would be able to challenge it by claiming that the divorce would cause “grave financial hardship” to her. This is an insufficient protection available to the wife, as this in no way accounts for her non-economic contribution to the marriage. The most that she can get by invoking this provision is a paltry amount of maintenance that the judge might order the husband to pay her.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce should be introduced only after putting in place an equitable system for assessing the contribution of both the spouses to the marriage. In the absence of it, the costs would be disproportionately borne by the wife.

Women's Web is a vibrant community for Indian women, an authentic space for us

Learn More

VIDEO OF THE WEEK

Comments

10 Comments


  1. I don’t get the point.If,for instance her non economic contribution is admitted in court would the court ensure a better financial/emotional deal for her? If a solution could be worked out it would really benefit the woman in question. As of now society takes a woman’s contribution for granted.

  2. Hmm, even if the courts allow either party to file for a divorce without mutual consent, does it necessarily follow that the courts will grant a settlement to women taking their situation into account? Is it only by holding one’s husband to ransom by refusing to consent to a divorce (in the case of the current law) that women get decent settlements? Were women actually capable of holding their husbands to ransom?

  3. Sorry my earlier comment had an error. I meant:
    Hmm, even if the courts allow either party to file for a divorce without mutual consent, does it necessarily follow that the courts will NOT grant a settlement to women taking their situation into account? Is it only by holding one’s husband to ransom by refusing to consent to a divorce (in the case of the current law) that women get decent settlements? Were women actually capable of holding their husbands to ransom?

  4. It is obvious how flawed an argument this is – even if the conclusions may be hard to disagree with.

    A few counterpoints follow:
    “But at the time of divorce, while the economic contribution of …by the wife is not.”

    [i]Not true. Non-economic contribution (lets loosely called this emotional contribution) is taken into account, where in most cases – as a result of their contribution to the family, women get sole or predominant custody of the kids. [/i]

  5. “Thus, the monetary support …to the marriage.”

    [i]Talking in terms of a generic family that the article talks about,the “monetary” support that women get from husbands at the time of divorce is disproportionate to their “overall contribution” just as the “emotional” support men get is disproportionate to their “overall contribution”. Monetary support i.e. alimony must be directly proportionate to the monetary contribution – if for no other reason, than the fact the emotional support is very clearly directly proportional to the emotional contribution. The argument cuts both ways.[/i]

  6. “..thus weakening her position further in a relationship which is already based on unequal terms”

    [i]Perhaps, the question that must be asked is why do women get into these relationships that are already based on unequal terms? In urban areas, which by some estimates account for over 2/3rd of divorces in past two decades in India, women get themselves into marriages of an “unequal nature”. Clearly, when these women get married, one of the most important aspects they look at is the financial stability of the man – whether he can afford to support the family financially. So, perhaps women get into marriages for the wrong reasons, and then blame men for the inequity, and want more of the “spoils” of the divorce from a marriage that they no longer want? Show me a woman that doesnt care about the man’s financial situation before getting married to him, and I’ll show you a rare woman who deserves more protection from the unfortunate outcomes of divorce in India.[/i]

  7. Quick contribution – just because a contribution is not expressed in terms of money, doesn’t mean the contribution itself is non-economic. Housework and childcare are both economic activities that allow one person to work outside the house while the other focuses on most (or more) indoor work. It makes careers possible for others. Hence the need for women’s contributions to be quantified, not dismissed as purely emotional.

  8. But how to calculate the contribution of women in monetary terms? Some are very hard working and some are less. Salary package of a man is the most important criteria in Indian marriage. If this is the case, then alimony can be termed as a ransom. If a man doesn’t take dowry, he should not be forced to pay more than the minimum wage act as maintenance. If woman is working, then no transactions should take place, they should decide themselves who will take care of children. Furthermore divorce brings disaster to both parties. How can the man remarry with the reduced income (almost half). Look at both aspects. Moreover in our society It has become fearful to marry a divorced person as how to identify who was at fault. What is the guarantee that divorce will not take place again?

    • Lol so it is a woman’s responsibility to ensure that husband is left with enough means to have another wife irrespective of her sufferings????

  9. But what happens when husband does not want divorce whereas wife wants divorce and there is a daughter of 3 and half years. Husband has given best effort – financially and emotionally to keep the relation intact but wife is adamant on divorce because of her parents influence and security and even wife liking other person or planning to get marry other person may be school friend. What happens to the custody of girl child if mother marry to another person after divorce from first husband.

Share your thoughts! [Be civil. No personal attacks. Longer comment policy in our footer!]

NOVEMBER's Best New Books by Women Authors!

Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!

TRUE BEAUTY