After Twinkle’s viral remark, Kajol says marriage should have an expiry date

In a thought-provoking moment on their talk show Two Much With Kajol and Twinkle, Bollywood stars Kajol and Twinkle Khanna led a discussion that has stirred social-media chatter and sparked broader conversations about modern marriage. The question posed: “Should marriage have an expiry date and a renewal option?” While Twinkle and guest stars opposed the concept, Kajol unexpectedly supported it — introducing a fresh take on relationships in today’s world.

Kajol’s viewpoint is simple yet bold: marriages shouldn’t have to endure suffering indefinitely. She argued that if a relationship is no longer working, introducing a contractual term might protect individuals from unnecessary pain. As she said, “What guarantees that you’ll marry the right person at the right time? A renewal option would make sense — and if there’s an expiry date, then no one has to suffer for too long.”



The Context Behind the Bold Statement

This isn’t just a sensational quote—it shines a light on how marriage and relationships are evolving in India. With rising divorce rates, changing gender roles, and growing conversations about relationship equality and mental health, Kajol’s idea taps into deep-seated questions about what marriage means today.

On the show, Twinkle Khanna flirted with humor before voicing her disagreement: “No, it’s marriage — not a washing machine.” Her retort underscores the tension between tradition and change in one moment.

Despite the light tone of the show, the ideas discussed carry weight: love, loyalty, timing, and whether the institution of marriage needs rethinking. Kajol’s remark offers an alternative view: that sometimes love endures not because the contract is infinite, but because it’s refreshed and chosen again.



Why This Hits a Cultural Nerve

India has long treated marriage as a lifelong commitment — rooted in tradition, spirituality and social expectation. The idea of an “expiry date” challenges that norm and raises several questions:

If commitment becomes finite, does it honour or trivialize the promise of marriage?

Does a renewal option empower individuals — or does it create pressure to “choose again” before time runs out?

How would children, extended family, and cultural norms respond to a model built on periodic consent rather than permanence?


While the notion may sound radical, Kajol’s phrasing frames it as compassionate — a way to prevent prolonged suffering rather than undermine vows.




Praised, Parsed and Provoked

Not surprisingly, social media erupted. Fans and critics alike offered their take. Some applauded Kajol for “starting the conversation” on relationship real-world dynamics; others cautioned that introducing expiry dates might undermine the sacredness of marriage.

Entertainment outlets have covered the story widely, noting that in the “This or That” segment of the show, only Kajol moved into the green zone (agreeing with the expiry/renewal option) while Twinkle, guest actor Kriti Sanon and Vicky Kaushal disagreed and stayed red.

Critics also pointed out the ease with which public figures like Kajol raise serious social topics in a “fun talk-show” format—making complex issues accessible but also risky. One article comments: “Kajol’s comment opens up the possibility that marriage doesn’t have to be endless suffering—it could be a choice renewed.”




What Does It Mean for Relationships?

If taken seriously, this approach suggests several possible implications:

Choice over obligation. A fixed-term contract or renewal clause implies couples rethink relationships actively rather than passively endure.

Focus on compatibility and timing. Kajol emphasised the question of marrying “at the right time”. Love may not look the same at age 25 and age 45.

Redefining commitment. Instead of binding forever, commitment becomes a “yes again” every few years — aligning with evolving personal growth and changing desires.

Mental health and dignity. For people in failing relationships, the idea offers hope: relief and respect rather than stagnation and shame.


Of course, there are cultural challenges. India’s extended-family structure, religious beliefs, and legal frameworks around marriage and divorce aren’t built around short-term contracts. Change would require both public discourse and structural reform.



In the End: A Mirror to Our Times

Kajol’s comment may shock or amuse, but it holds value because it mirrors deeper social shifts. As more individuals question the idea of “forever” while seeking connection that sustains, the suggestion of expiry and renewal becomes less provocative and more reflective.

Her words remind us that sometimes love doesn’t need to last forever—but perhaps it just needs to stay alive long enough to be meaningful. The renewal option doesn’t guarantee love, but it honours the idea that humans evolve—and so should their relationships.

Whether you agree or not, Kajol has opened a door to conversation—about love, time, growth, suffering, and what we owe each other when we promise “forever.” The line between commitment and captivity may be finer than we think, and maybe that’s why this discussion matters.