SPRINGFIELD - It has inspired jokes, led to jail sentences and been lamented in dozens of country-and-western songs.

Alimony - court-ordered financial support for a divorced spouse - is a legal concept perhaps best explained by author Lewis Grizzard as "the price you pay for the fun you had."

Until a sweeping overhaul was approved last year, the price was higher in Massachusetts than in most states, partly due to practice of awarding lifetime payments for short-term marriages.

Despite its progressive reputation, Massachusetts resisted overhauling alimony laws for decades, stranding lawyers, judges and divorced couples in a legal backwater rife with unpredictable and sometimes bizarre outcomes.

When the reforms took effect on March 1, all that changed.

For the first time, the law establishes clear guidelines for the duration of alimony payments, essentially eliminating lifetime support and allowing judges to end payments to former spouses living with new partners, regardless of whether they are married.

The law also establishes a formula for alimony, based on the length of the marriage. For example, alimony would generally last no more than 101/2 years following a 15-year marriage.

Even long-term alimony obligations will often stop at retirement age; also, specific catagories of support have been established, with specific rules for each one. Reimbursement alimony, for example, would would be awarded if one spouse put the other through school.

The revisions reflect changing social and demographic patterns, as well as the toll inflicted by a long-term economic slump. The group spearheading the changes, the Massachusetts Alimony Reform, argued that spouses had lost jobs or suffered sharply reduced income, but were denied corresponding reductions in alimony payments.

As the bill's sponsors pointed out, the burden of alimony does not always fall on men. In 2008, Clinton lawyer Cynthia A. Dziurgot was jailed on a contempt of court charge for failing to pay money she owed her ex-husband in a drawn-out divorce settlement.

Dziurgot was given a 90-day sentence after failing to meet a deadline to pay approximately $800,000 to her husband as part of a division of property agreement.

The impetus for change came from a task force led by state Sen. Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham, and state Rep. John V. Fernandes, D-Milford. Reforms drawn up by the task force drew widespread support from legal and family groups, and the resulting legislation drew 133 sponsors when it was introduced by Candaras and Fernandes at the Statehouse.

"The funny thing is, there wasn't a lot of opposition," said Marc E. Fitzgerald, a Boston lawyer and chairman of the Massachusetts Bar Association's family-law division.

Judges, lawyers and divorcing couples will all benefit from the clarity and specificity provided by the new law, which is considered one of the most important changes in family law in recent decades, Fitzgerald said.

But the law still gives judges discretion in establishing payments and determining how long they remain in effect, Fitzgerald said.

"It still comes down to the discretion of the court, and it will be interesting to see what judges do, especially for those traditional longer-term marriages," he said.

Fitzgerald and others expect no dramatic impact from the law, partly due to a staggered schedule for parties seeking to reduce or eliminate alimony payments.

For marriages lasting five years or less, the first day to request a hearing is March 1, 2013; marriages lasting five to 10 years must wait until March 1, 2014; marriages of between 10 and 15 years can file on March 1, 2015; and marriages of 20 years or less, on Sept. 1, 2015.

Northampton lawyer James B. Winston said the schedule also reflected concerns that spouses receiving alimony the longest will need most time to adjust to the changing law.

The most obvious impact will be felt in new divorces, but Winston said he does not expect a surge in filings to take advantage of the new rules.

Winston also said the overhaul will make the alimony process more predictable, a crucial improvement given the volatile forces at play in divorce cases.

"You might hear jokes about alimony from your friends or at parties, but never in the courthouse. It is not a joking matter," said Winston, an adjunct faulty member at Western New England University.

"In divorce cases, you're generally viewing really good people at a really bad time," he added.

Response to the new law was positive in a sampling of opinions outside Hampden Probate & Family Court recently.

Sitting on a bench outside a courtroom, Robert Manzi, 40, of Springfield, expressed a wide-ranging frustration with the probate court system, but said the new alimony rules were an improvement.

"I agree with that at least," he said, referring to the curbing of payments to spouses living with new partners.

Northampton lawyer Margaret E. White said the new law should bring more fairness to alimony rulings and praised the task force and legislators for their efforts. "They all should be commended," she said.

Outside the courthouse, Shaquanda Wilson, 21, said the decision to eliminate payments to spouses with new partners was just common sense. "You moved on," she said.

Her sister, Tanisha Wilson, 25, also of Springfield, agreed, but said nobody should confuse alimony and child support obligations: "If (a couple) have children, then you have to pay for them; that's very different."