Actor Vijay Divorce ₹250 Crore Alimony Truth

How Men Are Branded Guilty Even Before the First Hearing.
Unverified rumours around actor Vijay have already triggered a nationwide judgment against him. But when courts have not spoken yet, why is the public so quick to convict a man without evidence?

NEW DELHI: In India, a man does not need a conviction to be treated like a criminal.
A rumour, a headline, or a trending hashtag is often enough.

The recent wave of speculation around Tamil actor Vijay and his wife Sangeetha Sornalingam is a textbook example of how quickly public perception can turn against a man even before any verified legal proceeding begins.

As a men’s rights activist who deals daily with matrimonial litigation in Indian courts, I have seen the same pattern repeat thousands of times:
first the accusation, then the media trial, and only much later the actual legal process.

By that time, the man’s reputation is already destroyed.

The Vijay Divorce Story: What Is Fact and What Is Rumour

Actor Vijay married Sangeetha Sornalingam in 1999 and the couple have two children — Jason Sanjay and Divya Saasha.

For years their marriage remained largely private. However, several entertainment portals and social media discussions recently began circulating rumours about marital problems and possible separation.

At the same time:

• Some reports speculated about alleged extramarital links.
• Some portals claimed the couple may be separating.
• Others claimed massive alimony settlements.

Yet the most important fact remains this:

There has been no confirmed court verdict, no judicial finding, and no proven allegation.

Most of what the public is reacting to is unverified speculation amplified by social media.

Despite this, the narrative quickly became:

• Vijay is the villain.
• Vijay is the adulterer.
• Vijay must pay massive alimony.

This is precisely how social media trials work.

The Social Media Court vs The Real Court

Indian law operates on a basic principle:

Every person is innocent until proven guilty.

But in matrimonial disputes involving men, the opposite often happens.

The pattern usually looks like this:

• Allegations appear in media or social media.
• The man is instantly labelled immoral or abusive.
• Public outrage builds.
• Only later does the legal process even begin.

In celebrity cases the damage is reputational.

In ordinary cases the damage is far worse.

Men lose:

• jobs
• social standing
• mental health
• family relationships

all before a single court hearing.

What Indian Law Actually Says About Adultery

There is widespread misunderstanding about adultery in Indian law.

1. Adultery is no longer a criminal offence

In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC and decriminalized adultery.

Adultery is not a crime anymore.

However, it still remains a valid ground for divorce under personal laws, including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Maintenance can be denied if adultery is proven

Under Section 125(4) CrPC (now reflected in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the law clearly states:

A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery.

This principle has been repeatedly upheld in court judgments.

For example:

• Courts have ruled that a wife proven to be in an adulterous relationship can be disqualified from claiming maintenance.
• The Kerala High Court in 2025 reaffirmed that continuous adultery can disentitle a wife from maintenance, and such conduct can be proven even through circumstantial evidence.

These legal provisions show that Indian matrimonial law is not blind to misconduct.

But the critical word here is proven.

Not alleged.
Not rumored.
Not trending.

Proven in court.

Courts Require Evidence, Not Twitter Trends

Indian courts follow a completely different standard from social media.

In matrimonial disputes:

• allegations must be proven
• evidence must be examined
• witnesses must be cross-examined
• judicial reasoning must be recorded

For example, courts have repeatedly held that adultery is usually proven through circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof, because such acts rarely happen in public.

But even circumstantial evidence must pass strict judicial scrutiny.

That process takes time.

Yet public opinion delivers a verdict in minutes.

The Reality of Defamation Against Men

In celebrity cases like Vijay’s, rumours travel faster than facts.

Once a narrative is created:

• media repeats it
• influencers amplify it
• social media weaponizes it

The man becomes the villain of a story whose facts are still unknown.

This is a dangerous phenomenon.

Because even if the allegations are later proven false, reputation damage is permanent.

The Larger Pattern in Matrimonial Litigation

Working in the field of men’s rights and family litigation, I have seen how quickly public sympathy turns one-sided.

The default narrative often becomes:

• wife = victim
• husband = perpetrator

But the courtroom reality is far more complex.

Indian matrimonial disputes frequently involve:

• mutual accusations
• financial disputes
• custody battles
• property issues
• emotional breakdown of relationships

Reducing such complicated situations into a simple hero-villain narrative is intellectually dishonest.

Why Actor Vijay Deserves Due Process

Whether someone is a common citizen or a superstar, the principle remains the same:

Justice cannot be delivered by gossip.

Actor Vijay deserves the same legal protection that every citizen deserves:

• presumption of innocence
• evidence-based findings
• judicial determination

Until a court examines the facts, every allegation remains exactly what it is:

an allegation.

Nothing more.

The Real Problem: Public Opinion Before Legal Truth

The bigger issue is not Vijay.

The real issue is the culture of instant moral judgment against men.

Once a narrative begins, society rarely waits for the court to speak.

And that is dangerous for any rule-of-law society.

Because justice must come from courts, not hashtags.

Final Thought

As someone who has spent years fighting for fairness in matrimonial laws, I believe one principle must always remain non-negotiable:

No man should be declared guilty before the law declares him guilty.

Actor Vijay’s case reminds us how easily social media can destroy reputations.

But it also reminds us why due process exists.

Because justice is not decided by rumours.

Justice is decided in court.

FAQs