I don't believe men are disadvantaged in the maintainance law because the statement there is clear. Most of the indian women are not made to be self-dependent, but enough of them are abused in marriage and in husband's home. They were married off to the husband's family in an early age, and their natal family won't take their responsibility if they want to leave their husbands. And we are not a socialist country (not that I've actually seen one), so the society doesn't share minimum life-naintainance wealth equally among all the human beings. so the current system only means the woman doesn't have a way out of the dysfunctional marriage. So I support the maintenance law. But I also believe it's no solution. We should have equal marriage laws, above religion, gender and everything. And we should have a bar on how much wealth anyone can accumulate, and a floor on what must be available to each and every human beings, we should have monetary value of domestic work, and each children should be equally treated and given the same oportunities irrespective of their parent's money or status. Until that happens, I of course support maintenance laws, but mind you, it considers the wealth level of the man and the woman. A woman having higher net worth than a man isn't qualified for maintenance. And it just supports her basic livelihood, which just like the man's children and parent was dependent on the man before the divorce. And what your original question was is about alimony which is a one-time payment. That is gender-neutral in India. And I think everyone should have a prenup before and throughout the marriage, and thrive to include all the possibilities and solutions there. That's a practical, peaceful and logical way.
Lastly, here we are talking about India. Here divorce is a huge taboo, to the eye of the society, the divorced woman becomes characterless or battered wife, while the divorced man becomes irresponsible or a good catch back to market depending on their financial status, no one really give a single thought about the man's character. No one thinks a divorce can take place even if there's no apparent 'problem', they don't even want to see domestic violence as problems, whom are we kidding. So women here, unless they are from the top 1% of the society, don't and can't seek for divorce unless cases are really extreme, and she just lost all hope in the marriage. So no, there aren't many oportunistic women in here who are looting men of their money. I really don't know how can someone rob a man just by asking for basic maintainance, especially when it is only to be awarded to them if they are really unable to support themselves, and if it is just to support their basic needs, and not their "previous lavish" lifestyle.