Actually, not sure how this works legally and if there is any construction that will allow this, but surely fairness would make it seem that a wife has as much claim to her husband's earned (let's keep "hard" out of it for the sake of objectivity) money as the husband, so long as they are married.
In a matrimonial home, shouldn't she be presumed to have made tangible sacrifices that facilitated the husband in earning that money, and the burden of proving to the contrary should be on the husband? I mean for an average metropolitan Indian household, she surely took a backseat in her career to devote time to the children and have a physically and emotionally healthy family, or supported her husband in other ways, or something else.
Isn't some sort of security to a wife (No, basic maintenance at the level she is used to is not sufficient security in an "equal" partnership such as a marriage) one of the very foundations of the matrimonial bond?
Take a practical example. An educated, talented middle class woman in a city such as Delhi or Bombay marries a man of similar intellectual, professional and financial level. She soon has babies and likely takes a backseat in her career to care for the home. Even if she continues with her job, not doing it at a supremely competitive pace wouldn't earn her the kind of living that her husband is able to by not being the one to take the backseat. Her husband would be able to buy properties, she likely wouldn't.
Should she then live in the fear that if on he 25th year of marriage she or her husband were compelled to get a divorce, she might be left out on the road? You would agree that practically, maintaining a woman at the level she is used to is a lot different from her having actual assets to back her in life, retirement etc. There is financial freedom in one, and not in the other.
Some legal construct around this ought to be worked out!