TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Wife who earns ₹70,000+ asks for ₹50,000 per month maintenance from husband. High Court says you earn enough for yourself , husband doesn't need to "maintain" you.

desi_melanocyte

June 14, 2019
719 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://m.timesofindia.com/city/kolkata/if-salary-enough-no-maintenance-for-wife-calcutta-hc/amp_articleshow/69780785.cms?__twitter_impression=true
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Wife who earns ₹70,000+ asks for ₹50,000 per month maintenance from husband. High Court says you earn enough for yourself , husband doesn't need to "maintain" you.
Author

desi_melanocyte

Upvotes 719
Comments 48
Date June 14, 2019 11:09 AM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/c0iu1m/wife_who_earns_70000_asks_for_50000_per_month/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/wife-who-earns-70000-asks-for-50000-per-month.1206254
https://theredarchive.com/post/1206254
Top posts by desi_melanocyte

Why is it that the only positive traits in a man are the feminine ones? How is being stoic, tough, and strong wrong?

2470 upvotes
February 4, 2019
/r/MensRights

Equal opportunity doesn't imply equal outcome.

63 upvotes
February 10, 2019
/r/MensRights

Mumbai woman fined Rs 25 lakh for threat to file fake case of molestation

4 upvotes
January 28, 2019
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Ownyourfreedom 112 points113 points114 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, there shouldn't be a system that allows you the benefits of the relationship after the relationship is over. Jobs don't have to keep paying you after you don't work for them anymore.

[–]mRechter 55 points56 points57 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. And it is not like the stay-at-home parent will keep cookung and cleaning every few days for the working one after the divorce. Seems extremely one-sided.

[–]summonblood 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alimony doesn’t make sense nowadays unless there are still these marriages that resemble those of the past. It essentially allows women to claim ownership over men’s work, regardless of the situation. Women are no longer investing themselves into their man’s career, they are investing in their own careers. For women who are investing in their men’s careers, it does make sense for a joint ownership. But women who are not do not deserve the fruits of their husbands labors any more than men deserve the fruits of their wives labors.

We are basically acting like marriage is eternal, yet it’s not. This is a temporary partnership, not a life sentence.

To use your own analogy - where alimony makes sense is where a pension makes sense.

[–]quaggas -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not to disagree with your main point, but jobs do pay you when you leave sometimes. You can get severance pay if you are laid off or fired without cause. If you are working a job, you tailor other parts of your lifestyle as if that job is going to continue. You buy or rent a house nearby, and you expect the maintenance of that cost to be covered by the job. So when you lose that job, you use the severance to carry you to the next job. Maybe you have to move, so you can afford to live on your new paycheque.

Where it gets crazy is expecting your old employer to keep paying you for years to live in the same place, even if you have other means of support.

[–]Ownyourfreedom 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

WTF are you talking about. Severance is a one time payment. Alimony goes until you get married again and people purposely don't get married just to keep getting that check.

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alimony goes until you get married again

depends where you live

[–]justthrowmeout 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Severance pay can go on over a period of time.

[–]Chronoguy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alimony comes from a time when women couldn't legally own property once they were married. All their property was transferred to their husband, and all earned property was in his name. Therefore if they were divorced they would have literally nothing, and so the ex-husband was meant to provide for her - alimony.

Now-a-days women can own property, can have a job, can earn, and in the divorce will receive half (at least) of the joint property. Therefore there is zero reason for alimony. Either one can have half the shared property OR alimony, never should anyone get both.

[–]MRA-Sid 42 points43 points44 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes it’s another form of extortion

[–]epalsliphead 106 points107 points108 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

For once, common sense has prevailed.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank god

[–]MRA-Sid 54 points55 points56 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Such extortionists must be fined heavily for spoiling important time of court.

[–]Lethn 51 points52 points53 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

This should be the default for every alimony case, the person making the child support maintenance claim should have to prove that they need the money in my opinion.

[–]Mackowatosc57 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (22 children) | Copy Link

There should be no alimony, for noone, ever. Your ex is not your atm.

[–]DeathMind 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If as partners you make the decision that one of you stays at home for the kids, long term you will sacrifice a reasonable financial loss as you have less work experience. If you then split up with your partner you are not only financially disadvantaged but lose any source of income you have.

I would argue that alimony would be good for society as long as: A alimony is limited to reasonable living standards B alimony payer is not living below that standard C should require the payed, to actively seek income (no idle leeching)

Wouldn't that eliminate most problems?

[–]Bondofflame 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'd argue that you can't just choose not to get a job because you've never had one. I think reasonably they could have half the time of the marriage in alimony payments that would enocourage them to seek employment. So let's say your married for 10 years. You have 5 years to find a job. I think that's reasonable enough.

[–]DeathMind 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ye that is what I mean with point C. I wouldn't put it on 5 years but under a shorter timeframe where if you earn under the set living standard (assuming u work full-time) you continue to receive alimony to fill that gap. (Assuming the payer is able to without falling below the set standard

[–]el_doherz 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It should be capped at the time required to get a degree + three months. If the party has a relevant degree then it should be 12 months.

That way the party has time to get educated and find a job. Any more is just financing someones choice not to work.

[–]Sininenn 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No alimony imo.

Being a parent is a decision. Being a stay at home parent is a luxury, not a sacrifice.

Why would you reward someone for such a luxury they chose, but cry as if it were a punishment?

[–]loloLogic 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I was a big earner and wanted my wife to stay at home to raise the kids and maintain the house it would benefit me at the expense of her resume and earning potential. It is the only situation when alimony makes sense, as opposed to when both spouses work.

[–]Chronoguy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If as partners you make the decision that one of you stays at home for the kids, long term you will sacrifice a reasonable financial loss as you have less work experience.

You don't have to have kids if you don't want to. In your hypothetical they decided it was worth taking the hit to their CV to have children.

If you then split up with your partner you are not only financially disadvantaged but lose any source of income you have.

Yes, but only in the same way that if i decided to chill at home watching youtube for 5 years I would be disadvantaged too. Remember we are not talking about child support but alimony.

I think the lower earning spouse already gets half the shared assets, that seems fair to me. I don't see any reason they should get 'future earnings' too. Your stipulations would help remove some inequity, but why not just get rid of it entirely.

[–]DeathMind 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The hit taken to the CV is only for the partner that stays at home. Wether the partner chills at home watching youtube is not the same as taking care of all other issues in and around the house. I'm not talking about child support, that is a seperate issue, but taking care of the kids at home also requires time that could otherwise be spent on advancing careers.

I think removing it entirely causes inquity as well as relationships with one people earning all the money and the other taking care of the house, you basically create a power dynamic which can be abused. Just like I advocate for limitations on alimony to avoid abuse on the other end. Unless you have other solutions for this I have to disagree on complete removal.

[–]Chronoguy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The hit taken to the CV is only for the partner that stays at home.

Exactly. My point is that they chose their actions together. It wasn't forced onto them.

one people earning all the money and the other taking care of the house, you basically create a power dynamic which can be abused.

So you and I get married. You earn $100K, and I earn 0. We spend $50K and have $50K at the end of the year. You want a divorce because I just sat around watching youtube all day. I get $25K and a year gap on my CV, and you get $25K. Where is the inequality?

Now obviously alimony is for long term but just multiply everything by 20 and the maths works out the same. I think either you get the savings and owe me alimony so I can 'get back on my feet', or we split what is left over and call it even.

[–]XxBrokenFireflyxX 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree to a point. If one spouse put their career on hold so the other can advance then I can see a reason for *some support but only to the extent that the one receiving the money finds a way to support themselves, and only for a limited time so the receiver can’t exploit the payer.

The best choice though would be for both parties to come to an amicable agreement. In my case my kids dad and I decided that it was cheaper if we kept things basically the same. He hates cleaning/cooking/bills/home maintenance. I don’t mind it. Meanwhile I’m not the type that needs expensive clothes/personal care, so we decided that we live together and keep a sort of status quo with the kids. I do the cooking/cleaning/home/kid stuff and he works. He gets his laundry done, food cooked, and knows the kids are cared for appropriately and can come home and not worry about chores. He works so hard he shouldn’t have to deal with the little crap. Just because we don’t feel the same romantically about each other doesn’t mean we want each other to be stressed. I know that me and the kids have a good home and good life. Their dad knows that he can go to work and not worry about anything regarding the home or kids. He has clean clothes in his closet, a hot meal when he gets home, a decent breakfast in the morning, dr appts. scheduled/meds picked up, and when he does get home he can focus on being a dad everyday rather than playing Mr Mom every other week and half the summer. We decided that being adults and parents was more important that fighting tooth and nail because when you try and do that the only ones who really win are lawyers. We decided that if anyone should win it should be our kids. They are the important part of the equation.

I realize our situation is unique and won’t work for everyone. Both of us had to come to the realization that making things work for the kids was more important then our pride and that just because we each felt hurt by the other didn’t mean that we could forget that at one point in time we cared deeply for each other. We had to figure out a way to forgive the hurt and focus on the respect we have for each other. He’s an amazing dad to our kids, works so hard to make sure they have a good home and happy childhood. For that I respect him so deeply and he feels the same in regard to the homemaking and care I take with our kids.

[–]summonblood 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think alimony should be viewed like a pension. There’s a threshold of years and your rank and amount of years influence how big that pension is.

For marriages that still resemble marriages of the past, e.g. my own parents who were married for 17 years while my mom was a stay-at-home parent, yeah it makes sense for alimony because she supported my Dads career and he immensely benefitted from that. She enabled him to grow his career, raise a family, take care of his property. That’s an investment. For the amount of years she put in, absolutely she deserves alimony.

Until the end of her life though? Doesn’t really make sense to me for it extend past the amount of years they are married.

I think the stay-at-home parent needs to prove the value of how they enabled the careers of their partner. If a woman was a dead-beat Mom, who barely did anything, yeah her alimony shouldn’t be much compared to a Mom who supported and helped build and counsel her husband’s success.

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

my Dads career and he immensely benefitted from that. She enabled him to grow his career, raise a family, take care of his property.

and a past tense is well applied here. She also benefited from that, while the marriage lasted. Continued support for her will not yield anything for him after divorce, therefore should not apply - as nothing should only work one way.

[+]Mindraker -45 points-44 points-43 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Men will be singing a different song once women have all the jobs.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah those all female companys always haveva smashing time don't they

[–]Lethn 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol if feminists ever managed their vision of an entire corporate take over all the actual producers would just quit and form their own companies, including by the way, the women who can't stand them. You see this constantly happening in communities they attempt to subvert as well, anyone competent or intelligent just gets up and leaves.

[–]abatoire 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Happy for women to work and earn more than men. Then the courts will award men alimony, child custody and such.

[–]Mindraker -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Then the courts will award men alimony, child custody and such.

You have more faith in the system...

[–]abatoire 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alas sadly I do. 😔

Should have said "Then perhaps the courts..."

[–]ClubZlut 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

... What?

[–]Mindraker -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What I'm trying to say is, right now, men are very anti-alimony (justifiably or not) because men are the wage-earners.

But, as more and more women become wage-earners, and some even earn more income than men, we see cases like this where the occasional alimony case is ruled in favor of the man.

Will men continue to be as anti-alimony when it starts to be in their favor?

Similarly, women are starting to realize the bite of alimony, when it is NOT in their favor.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In the rare case when women pay alimony they bitch louder and more obnoxiously than any man ever has, and they get to appear on Daytime talk shows to parade their "victim" status and how "unfair" it is that they have to pay their "loser" ex any money.

You really think if women actually ever became the main wage earners they'd pay any fucking alimony to men? That's hilarious, bruv.

[–]KingTutWasASlut 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok bud

[–]InformalCriticism 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is what bothers me the most, if the woman insists on taking the kids AND makes more than the government assistance limit, then it's clearly good enough for the kids in the eyes of the government.

[–]hmspain 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Need"?

[–]Lethn -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There will be situations where a mother would actually need support, even I think that but again, it should be done on a case by case basis and they should have to prove it not have the courts automatically side with them just because they have a vagina.

[–]riot_ball 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Those Indians with their common sense

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alimony is an absolutely archaic concept and is in many cases nothing more than extorting an ex simply because someone feels entitled to do so.

[–]someguy92614 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this is why it is NOT in a mans best interest to EVER get married. vaginamony is real and not worth it.

[–]DeathMind 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This all depends on the scenario and I'm trying to mitigate them all to some extent.

Scenario A: You earn 60k and I earn 20k both full-time and we get a kid. We decide child services are worse than one of us staying at home so one of us takes care of the kids. Me having the lower income seems better suited as this leaves us a higher net income. After four years you don't love me anymore and ask for a divorce. Now you didn't lose anything as you have been gaining more work experience while I didn't and go back to maybe 20k when if I worked 4 years would've maybe earned 35k.

Scenario B: We married when I was 18 and you were 25. You were earning 45k a year and told me I didn't need to go to college I can support you in the house and everything, cook, clean etc as you work 70-80 hours a week. After 6 years you divorce me because you found a different person. I'm now out of a job and education on a decision we made together. Or let's say ur abusive, I need to do what you want or you divorce me leaving me with nothing on the street.

Both partners need to be protected to some extent. Either side could exploit this system if done wrong. Neither side should hold all the power.

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't believe it! I really can't!

Family law needs a total overhaul.

[–]guillemqv 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The only scenario where alimony should be considered is when someone has left their career on hold in order to take care of the kids or similar.

And alimony should be 1 year max. Then suck it up like the adult you are.

[–]Splatfan1 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

how much is ₹

[–]Schroedinbug -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alimony should really be limited to a short length of time and awarded more scarsely.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter