In recent times, Dhanashree Verma, a renowned choreographer and social media influencer, has been at the center of public discourse due to her divorce from Indian cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal. The couple, who married in December 2020, officially parted ways in March 2025, with Chahal agreeing to pay an alimony of ₹4.75 crore as part of the mutual settlement.
The Emergence of Criticism
Following the announcement of the alimony agreement, Verma faced criticism from certain quarters. Critics argue that in an era where women are achieving financial independence, the demand for alimony perpetuates traditional gender roles that assume women need financial support after divorce, even if they are economically self-sufficient.
Addressing Misinformation
Compounding the situation were rumors suggesting that Verma had demanded an exorbitant alimony amount of ₹60 crore. These claims were promptly refuted by her family, who labeled them as baseless and emphasized that no such amount was ever asked, demanded, or offered. They criticized the spread of unverified information, highlighting that such speculation unnecessarily involved their families in false narratives.
Alimony as a Legal Right
Alimony, or spousal support, is a legal provision designed to ensure that a spouse does not suffer undue financial hardship following a divorce. It is not solely contingent upon the recipient’s financial status but also considers various factors, including the duration of the marriage, the standard of living established during the union, and contributions made by each partner, whether financial or otherwise.
Criticizing Verma for receiving alimony overlooks the broader context of marital partnerships. Marriage often involves sacrifices and contributions that are not quantifiable in monetary terms. For instance, one partner may have compromised on career opportunities to support the other’s ambitions or to manage household responsibilities. Alimony serves to acknowledge these intangible contributions and to ensure a fair transition for both parties post-divorce.
Furthermore, the criticism rooted in the notion that financially independent women should not seek alimony fails to recognize that alimony is not a reflection of one’s capability but a legal right ensuring equitable outcomes. Denying this right based on financial independence alone sets a concerning precedent that could deter individuals from seeking fair settlements.
The discourse surrounding Dhanashree Verma’s alimony underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of marital dynamics and legal rights. Alimony is a provision that ensures fairness and acknowledges the multifaceted contributions within a marriage. Criticism based on misconceptions not only undermines individual rights but also perpetuates stereotypes that are incongruent with the principles of equality and justice.