Judgment recognises that a marriage is a partnership, not a transaction

WOMEN'S rights activists have welcomed this landmark judgment, describing it as a vital step against economic abuse that disproportionately affects women who sacrifice careers for family.

Experts said this ruling recognised that unpaid domestic labour had real economic value and constituted a significant contribution to marital assets.

Previn Vedan, a community activist and human rights attorney said: “For too long, the law has been applied in a way that privileges visible income over invisible labour. This judgment recognises that a marriage is a partnership, not a transaction, and that justice cannot be reduced to payslips and bank statements alone.

“In many communities, there remains a deeply entrenched cultural expectation that women will sacrifice careers, financial independence and personal advancement in service of marriage and family. The judgment is a necessary and overdue affirmation that unpaid care work, emotional labour and decades of contribution within a marriage have real economic value.”

“Importantly, the court did not merely apply the law mechanically; it applied it humanely. That is the kind of jurisprudence that restores faith in our legal system and sends a clear message that dignity does not expire with age, nor does contribution vanish because it was rendered quietly," he said.

He said while this issue was prevalent in the Indian community, it was not spoken about due to stigma.

“Within segments of the Indian community, there remains a deeply entrenched cultural expectation that women will sacrifice careers, financial independence and personal advancement in service of marriage and family. 

“These sacrifices are often framed as duty, loyalty, or tradition, rather than recognised as labour deserving of protection. What makes this issue particularly complex is that many women internalise these expectations, believing they will be taken care of indefinitely. When marriages break down, women are often left economically exposed, emotionally depleted, and legally vulnerable. This is not unique to the Indian community, but cultural silence and stigma can make it more difficult to confront."

Vedan said economic dependency, informational imbalance, and power dynamics are contributing factors that led women to “systemic vulnerability”.

“Economic dependency is created when women are discouraged or prevented from building independent financial security. Informational imbalance is when women are not adequately informed about their legal rights during marriage, particularly around property regimes, pensions, and estates.

“Then you get power dynamics, where one spouse controls access to money, assets, and decision-making, often under the guise of protection or provision. When these factors intersect over decades, the result is not just inequality, it is systemic vulnerability. The law is now beginning to recognise that reality more clearly.

“Women must understand their marital regime, their rights to maintenance, accrual, and estate claims, and the legal consequences of financial dependence. They should keep records of contributions, correspondence, and patterns of financial control. They should also seek independent legal advice early, not only when a relationship collapses,” he said.

“Too often, women seek help when the damage is already done. Standing up for oneself does not always mean confrontation. Sometimes it means preparation, clarity, and quiet strength. This constitutes GBV and economic abuse, which is a recognised but often an under-acknowledged form of GBV."

Vedan said when a spouse was systematically denied access to financial resources, prevented from building independence, and later blamed for that very dependence, it reflected coercive control rather than mutual partnership.

“GBV is not limited to physical harm. It includes patterns of domination that strip individuals, particularly women, of agency, security, and dignity. This judgment correctly acknowledges that reality and places economic justice at the centre of marital accountability.

“This case reminds us that justice is not only about how the law reads on paper, but about how it protects people in real life. At the Justice Commission, we believe the law must serve those who carried the quiet weight of sacrifice, not just those who held the purse strings."

Vanessa Chetty, the founder of The Hope Foundation, a women's rights group, said they hoped more women would become empowered by the judgment.

“This is a huge achievement because many women find themselves in this situation where they feel like they have to earn their keep, and men make them feel like that; not realising the value in the women’s contributions. There are a lot of Indian women suffering the same fate.

"There is also the issue where women work, and the husband does not work, but she is not allowed to control the money. When they divorce, she is still left with nothing because he had drained the finances. Financial abuse is a recognised criminal offence in the justice system. It is a prosecutable crime."

Chetty said culture had played a big part in how women are being led into these kinds of situations.

“Back in the day, the patriarchal system dictated that men would earn money and have control of the house. But we know that in the practical dimension that is not true. We are glad that women are now standing up against these types of abuse. From my experience dealing with women, older women are more inclined to face this type of abuse, where they are deprived of finances. There is a need for more healthy conversations and awareness around this, so that women can become empowered and put an end to this treatment,” she added.

POST