Why the Marriage Law Regarding Men's Alimony Obligations is Being Challenged in the Constitutional Court

The Marriage Law Number 1 of 1974 has been challenged in the Constitutional Court under case registration number 159/PUU-XXIV/2026. The judicial review specifically targets Articles 34, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Marriage Law, which state:

Paragraph 1: A husband is obliged to protect his wife and provide all the necessities of household life according to his ability.

Paragraph 2: A wife is obliged to manage household affairs as best as possible.

In the petition, the contested norms are deemed to create gender discrimination. The petitioner claims that these articles have caused specific and actual constitutional losses. Having been previously married, the petitioner sought to protect his assets through a prenuptial agreement but argues that the current law allows for exploitation by a spouse, leading to material losses and breach of contract claims.

Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the article is one-sided because it assigns obligations based on gender. The clause regarding the wife’s role is said to unilaterally grant legal immunity while demanding material fulfilment from the husband, without being accompanied by reciprocal obligations such as good faith, equal partnership, and mutual protection within the household.

Consequently, in the petition’s prayer, the petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to amend the aforementioned articles to state: ‘Husbands and wives have a mutual obligation to protect and respect one another, to provide all the necessities of household life, and to manage household affairs proportionally in order to realise a marriage that is an equal partnership based on sincere love and affection.’