/odishatv/media/post_attachments/uploadimage/library/16_9/16_9_0/marriage__1682302451.webp)
A series of viral social media posts has sparked a heated debate across platforms over gender roles, financial expectations, and double standards in modern relationships.
The discussion began after a post claimed that a 26-year-old chartered accountant earning Rs 18 lakh per annum got engaged to her gym trainer boyfriend, who reportedly earns Rs 22,000 a month, is a Class 12 pass, and lives in a modest one-bedroom apartment.
Branch Manager At RBI
Adding fuel to the debate, another user shared an anecdote about a high-achieving woman, a topper who is set to become a branch manager at the Reserve Bank of India, married her school sweetheart, who is currently unemployed and financially dependent.
The comparison between the two cases triggered widespread commentary, with users divided over whether financial parity should be a deciding factor in marriage.
A 26 yo CA girl earning 18 LPA just got engaged to her gym trainer boyfriend.
— Butterfly🦋🦋 (@kya_butterfly_h) February 3, 2026
He earns 22k/month, 12th pass only, no house/car, lives in 1 bhk. the biggest L she’ll regret in 5 years
Social Media Divided
While some social media users questioned the long-term practicality of such relationships, many others pushed back, calling the criticism sexist and reflective of outdated norms. Sociologists and gender experts say the backlash highlights a persistent double standard.
According to them, men are still largely valued for financial stability, while women are expected to compromise or ‘marry up’. When these roles are reversed, society often responds with discomfort or judgment.
The debate has since evolved beyond individual cases, raising larger questions about equality, autonomy, and whether marriage should be evaluated through income comparisons at all.
/odishatv/media/agency_attachments/2025/07/18/2025-07-18t114635091z-640x480-otv-eng-sukant-rout-1-2025-07-18-17-16-35.png)

/odishatv/media/media_files/2025/09/22/advertise-with-us-2025-09-22-12-54-26.jpeg)