Irrespective of what we accept, deny, or transcend, we surrender —
our actions, in search of balance with our inner anchors;
anchors shaped by what each of us perceives as right or wrong;
and our senses, which channel knowledge into awareness —
all in the service of cultivating a conscious cycle of thoughts and actions.
Marriage is the birth of characters — a union where both partners are expected to accept one another, though not necessarily to adopt or absorb each other’s identities. It is an agreement built on mutual respect, shared responsibilities and emotional investment.
Divorce, by contrast, is a transformation — marking the death of mutual accountability and the rebirth of individual autonomy. It is a process through which both individuals are freed from emotional, physical, financial, legal and spiritual obligations toward one another. However, the current legal system — still shaped by patriarchal roots and gendered biases — often fails to reflect this reality. Instead of enabling closure and autonomy, it frequently imposes asymmetrical burdens, often biased toward one gender and misrepresents the essence of divorce.
Legal constructs such as alimony and maintenance, which may have had historical justification in an era of rigid gender roles, now appear as relics of feminism – a newer form of patriarchy. These frameworks perpetuate outdated assumptions: that men are perpetual providers and women are default dependents. In doing so, they obstruct progress toward a society that recognises the dignity, emotions and autonomy of all individuals, regardless of gender or orientation.
If both partners enter marriage as equals, they must be allowed to exit as equals — with dignity, without debt and without residual entitlements based on outdated social scripts.
The Hidden Contracts Behind Modern Relationships
Modern relationships often carry a silent transactional core masked by legality, romance, or social conformity. Whether through marriage, alimony, or brothels, the human need for companionship, security and intimacy has been institutionalised — often without honest accountability.
The Transactional Truth: Are We Ready to Accept It?
Behind the veils of romance, commitment and legality, modern relationships often mirror a silent transaction — money for emotional security, sex for validation, companionship for social currency. The institutions that evolved to formalise love—marriage, alimony and brothels — may have inadvertently exposed the raw bargaining table of human needs.
The Gendered Exchange: Patriarchy To Matriarchy
Traditionally, women sought financial stability; men sought sexual fulfillment. These were never declared contracts, but society silently endorsed them. When women stopped receiving lifelong financial support in a shifting economy, alimony and maintenance laws were introduced without equal accountability. When men couldn’t find sexual intimacy within relationships, brothels became state-tolerated outlets. Both reflect unmet needs — but institutionalised. Is this progress or legal hypocrisy?
Alimony: Security or Entitlement?
Alimony was justified when women had limited economic agency. But today, when gender equality is promoted in the workplace, why is financial dependence still codified in law? Is alimony still support — or a reward for failed partnerships? When laws force men to pay for a relationship that no longer exists, the line between marriage and financial servitude begins to blur.
Brothels: Consent or Coping?
Brothels reflect another societal gap — intimacy without emotional liability. Both women and men, unable to find respect or affection in relationships, turn to what is essentially a paid approximation of connection. Is this empowerment of choice — or resignation to transactional affection?
Sextortion: The Modern Weapon
Far more dangerous is the rise of sextortion — where intimacy becomes a weapon. Here, sex isn’t exchanged; it’s threatened, recorded and used to extract money, silence, or submission. It’s not love or lust — it’s power abuse with devastating consequences.
Are We Ready to Accept the Truth?
What we’re calling progress — freedom to marry, freedom to leave, freedom to sell or buy affection — may actually be a system built on disguised desperation. If brothels, alimony and sextortion are symptoms, then the disease is the lack of honest, mutual, accountable connection. The question is not whether these practices exist. The question is — are we ready to name them for what they are?
The Inheritance Contradiction: Streedhan
While Streedhan is rightfully protected as a woman’s exclusive property — even after divorce — the same clarity and respect are not extended to a man’s assets. In many divorce proceedings, a woman can claim not only alimony and maintenance but also stake claims on the man’s self-earned property or even ancestral assets belonging to his parents. This creates a legal imbalance, where a woman retains her financial identity, but a man is expected to dilute his — sometimes beyond reason. If marriage is a union of equals, the law must treat both parties’ assets with equal autonomy and accountability, especially after divorce. Anything less is not justice — it’s an outdated hierarchy masked as equality.
- In public or professional life, individuals identifying as women are rightly protected under laws safeguarding their autonomy. Yet, when expectations aren’t met, there is growing misuse of these protections — with false accusations eroding justice, harming the innocent and undermining real victims.
- In intimate relationships, protections like rape laws are critical. But when used punitively in the face of unmet emotional or personal expectations, they become tools of coercion, not justice.
- During marriage negotiations, laws such as the Dowry Prohibition Act serve a vital purpose. However, false dowry accusations — especially in cases where a proposal is declined — highlight the vulnerability of those the law was never meant to punish.
- After marriage, protective laws like the Domestic Violence Act offer recourse to abuse victims. Yet inconsistencies emerge — for example, when the same woman, once shielded as a daughter or wife, is denied that protection as a mother-in-law. These inconsistencies expose the relational bias embedded in gendered law.
Such misuse is not exclusive to one gender. The growing recognition of non-binary identities, same-sex relationships and diverse orientations demands that the law treat all individuals equally — not as categories, but as citizens with equal dignity, rights and accountability.
Justice must evolve from gendered protectionism to gender-neutral responsibility.
We need a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) that is not only uniform in name but gender-neutral in practice — a code that recognises not only the rights and autonomy of women but also the dignity of men, the emotional depth of men and their right to protection without prejudice and punishment without guilt. Justice must not be gendered. Accountability and compassion must apply equally — to all individuals, regardless of gender — so that law becomes a framework of fairness, not fear.
False allegations, manipulations, or abuse of laws — by any gender — must be addressed firmly. Not to shame or silence the accuser, but to correct the system, protect the innocent and reinforce accountability. The goal is not to strip anyone of rights, but to ensure that rights are not weaponised.
The future of family law must be built on humanism, not hierarchy.
A Gender-Neutral UCC would be a vital step toward a society rooted in fairness, individual autonomy and mutual respect. It would eliminate archaic gender roles, create legal symmetry in relationships and ensure that no one is above the law — regardless of gender, orientation, or role.
True justice begins not with punishment or entitlement, but with recognition — of every individual’s right to walk away from a relationship with dignity, to love without fear, to disagree without being destroyed and to exist without being typecast by outdated gender norms.
- Abandon assumptions of male guilt or female victimhood.
- Recognise emotional, financial and physical autonomy for all genders.
- End legal double standards in alimony, custody, or maintenance.
- Replace entitlement with effort and reciprocity.
- Restore the sanctity of consent, dignity and free will.
Institutions built on outdated assumptions must evolve. Legal systems must reflect modern realities—not enforce old debts of dependency and power. Only through awareness, responsibility and accountability can we transcend transactional existence and move toward true human connection.
It’s time we confront these contradictions and build frameworks based not on legal exploitation, but on mutual responsibility, emotional maturity and human honesty. Because when a society justifies financial bondage as support and purchases intimacy as freedom, corruption doesn’t begin in courtrooms or bedrooms — it begins in our silence.
Let the law serve humanity — not patriarchy, not matriarchy, but mutual accountability and universal dignity.
