Through Hrithik Roshan’s case and a recent Delhi High Court ruling, we explore how alimony has turned from support for the needy into entitlement for the privileged.
The Celebrity Divorce That Sparked a Debate
One of the most talked-about marriage splits in India was the 2014 divorce between interior designer Sussanne Khan and Bollywood star Hrithik Roshan. According to media reports at the time, the settlement amount was between ₹380 and ₹400 crore, making it one of the priciest splits in Bollywood history.
Sussanne, a prosperous businesswoman and designer, and Hrithik, one of India’s highest-paid actors, were both financially stable. Even though Hrithik later rejected those numbers as “fabricated,” the case sparked a wider conversation: Should financially independent spouses be entitled to alimony at all?
The Legal Question: What Does Alimony Really Mean?
Courts have the authority to award permanent alimony or maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, either at the time of a divorce decree or later, after taking into account the assets, income, and behaviour of both spouses. This clause is meant to provide a spouse who is truly dependent and unable to support themselves with limited financial protection rather than to establish a lifelong financial obligation.
In parallel, a summary and social-welfare remedy to avoid destitution is provided by Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It enables parents, spouses, and kids who are unable to support themselves to ask a person with enough money for monthly maintenance. It is intended to ensure survival rather than enrichment and serves only as a preventative and humanitarian measure. Indian courts have made it clear time and time again that alimony or maintenance is a relief of necessity that depends on financial need rather than marital status alone.
In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017 15 SCC 801), the Supreme Court noted that a spouse who is able to earn or is already earning cannot request maintenance just because they were previously married. Alimony was never intended to be a financial reward for separation or a post-marriage windfall. Even when women are financially independent and self-sufficient, public perception still frames it as an automatic entitlement, particularly in high-profile celebrity divorces.
Judicial Reality Check
This principle has been reaffirmed by a recent ruling in the case of Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri (Delhi High Court, 2025). A wife who was a Group “A” Indian Railway Traffic Service officer was denied alimony by the Delhi High decided on October 17, 2025. The Bench in this case has noted: “A self-sufficient spouse cannot seek financial support merely because the marriage has ended.” The court decided that financial independence precludes a maintenance claim, stating that the wife was already receiving pensionary benefits and a salary. In the direction of gender-neutral financial justice, where equality means shared accountability rather than preferential treatment, the ruling represents a significant step.
Findings and Observations of the Division Bench:
The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. In their detailed judgment, the Bench reaffirmed that permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be claimed as a matter of routine or right. The Court underlined that the purpose of alimony is to ensure subsistence, not enrichment, and that the provision must be interpreted through the lens of need-based relief, not gender-based presumption.
The judges observed that when both spouses are educated, employed, and financially secure, the law does not envisage one-sided financial dependency after divorce. The Court categorically held that: “A self-sufficient spouse cannot seek financial support merely because the marriage has ended. Maintenance is not a post-marital privilege; it is a relief of necessity.”
The Bench further noted that the modern evolution of matrimonial jurisprudence requires courts to balance compassion with equality. The concept of alimony, once rooted in the socio-economic vulnerability of women, must now adapt to an era of professional parity and mutual accountability. In its reasoning, the Court drew attention to the larger constitutional principles of fairness, dignity, and non-discrimination, asserting that extending alimony to a self-sustaining spouse would defeat the very object of gender-neutral justice. The judgment thus signals a transformative shift; moving from traditional protectionism toward a pragmatic equality model, where both spouses are seen as autonomous individuals, not dependent identities.
The Contrast Between Courtroom Logic and Celebrity Culture
Celebrity culture frequently thrives on emotion, perception, and headlines, whereas the courtroom depends on the law, reasoning, and financial evidence.
Sussanne Khan and Hrithik Roshan’s 2014 divorce was motivated more by public interest than by legal considerations. The ₹380–400 crore “alimony” figure was the subject of endless media discussion, despite the fact that no official court ruling or document ever verified this amount.
In Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri (2025), on the other hand, the Delhi High Court used a gender-neutral, well-reasoned approach to deny alimony to a financially independent senior IRTS officer wife. The Bench noted that when both partners are able to support themselves, marriage cannot serve as a springboard for lifetime financial dependence.
This disparity draws attention to the growing disconnect between judicial principle and public opinion. The judiciary is gradually re-establishing equilibrium, reminding society that equality also entails financial accountability on both sides, even as celebrity divorces continue to perpetuate the myth that a man must pay because he can.
Justice Evolves – Why India’s New Alimony Rulings Are a Win for True Gender Equality?
Financial independence nullifies the maintenance claim, according to recent rulings from the Supreme Court and several High Courts. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal (2000 MP HC) and Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017 15 SCC 801) are two cases that reinforce the same idea: a well-qualified, capable, and earning spouse cannot request maintenance just because they are married.
A more evidence-based standard of economic capacity is replacing the law’s emotional assumptions of female dependency. This development is indicative of a growing comprehension of gender-neutral justice. The expectation that husbands will provide lifetime financial support is no longer morally or legally justified as women take on leadership roles, manage government offices, and launch their own businesses. Under the pretence of equality, courts have started to acknowledge that alimony demands made without proof of need amount to economic exploitation.
The ruling in Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri (2025) by the Delhi High Court is a significant step in that regard. The Court reaffirmed that the goal of maintenance is to prevent poverty rather than to maintain privileges by refusing alimony to a senior Indian Railway Traffic Service officer. The Bench’s finding that “a self-sufficient spouse cannot seek financial support merely because the marriage has ended” is consistent with the growing idea that fairness in matrimonial jurisprudence needs to take the place of favouritism.
The ruling in Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri (2025) by the Delhi High Court is a significant step in that regard. The Court reaffirmed that the goal of maintenance is to prevent poverty rather than to maintain privileges by refusing alimony to a senior Indian Railway Traffic Service officer. The Bench’s finding that “a self-sufficient spouse cannot seek financial support merely because the marriage has ended” is consistent with the growing idea that fairness in matrimonial jurisprudence needs to take the place of favouritism.
Explanatory Table: Legal Provisions and Key Cases on Alimony involved:
| Law / Case Title | Provision / Citation | Key Principle Established |
| Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act (1955) | Permanent alimony and maintenance | Court may grant alimony having regard to income, property, and conduct of both spouses. Relief is based on need, not entitlement. |
| Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) | Maintenance for wife, children, and parents | A social-welfare provision to prevent destitution. Intended for survival of a dependent spouse, not enrichment of a financially secure one. |
| Rita Raj v. Pabitra Roy Chaudhuri (Delhi HC, 2025) | MAT.APP.(F.C.) 2/2024, decided 17 Oct 2025 | Alimony denied to a senior IRTS officer; Court held: “A self-sufficient spouse cannot seek financial support merely because the marriage has ended.” Reinforced gender-neutral financial justice. |
| Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801 | Supreme Court of India | Maintenance cannot be used to enrich an already financially independent spouse; capability to earn negates claim for alimony. |
| Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal (2000 MP HC) | Madhya Pradesh High Court | A well-qualified and working wife not entitled to maintenance; dependency must be proven. |
| Hrithik Roshan v. Sussanne Khan (2014) | Mutual-consent divorce, Bandra Family Court | Alleged ₹380–₹400 crore settlement (unverified). Became symbolic of the public misconception that wealthy husbands must always pay large alimony regardless of the wife’s independence. |
Conclusion: Redefining Alimony for a Changing India
One of the few areas of Indian family law where social sentiment still prevails over rationality is alimony. Originally intended as a survival strategy rather than a status symbol, it has since been misinterpreted as payment for marriage. The definition of maintenance must change along with society. The gender-neutral legal system in India is progressively replacing the gender-protective one. Fairness is not determined by who married whom, but rather by who actually needs assistance, as courts are realising more and more. Today, the focus is changing from empathy to independence from asking, “Is she his wife?” to asking, “Can she support herself?”
Continued financial dependence erodes the dignity of a capable, educated, and earning spouse, regardless of gender. Therefore, the role of the law is to protect autonomy rather than to maintain dependency. This change will shape matrimonial jurisprudence for the next ten years. Sustainability, not gender, but actual need will be used to gauge maintenance going forward.
The lesson learnt from this shift is straightforward but profound: accountability and independence must coexist. Divorce must now be viewed as a parting of equals rather than a payment plan, if marriage was once a partnership of care.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.