The present criminal law, the mentality of law enforcement agencies, judiciary, and society as a whole are entirely tilted towards the female gender and biased against men as there is fear of them being entangled in a legal web in case of a criminal case filed against them. The men’s rights activists claim that the anti-dowry laws are being frequently misused to harass and extort husbands. The high rate of suicide among married men in India is also attributed to harassment under these laws by activists.
The exponews explore various pros and cons.
We live in a male dominant society as often said. However when it comes in India do we really have laws favouring the men at all? We talk about gender equality, it does not only mean equality for women, it mean equality for all which include men also.
Domestic violence or harassment have been always discussed in relation to women. Due to socioeconomic changes affecting the family structure in recent times, harassment is not only limited to women. Men are also harassed verbally, physically, sexually and through many other ways, but they do not report these abusive behaviours and they all suffer silently.
The laws in or society support women as victims of harassment, men do not get justice for their condition in society.
Pran-Nath, pati parmeshwar- these were the terms used for the husbands by their wives. At that time husbands were god for their wives. Wives use to keep fasts for their husband for healthy and long life.Even wives sati themselves in the funeral of their husbands. At that time wives were so dedicated to husbands that we can conclude that women had an existence no better than a slave in early civilization.
Wives regularly participated in religious events with their husbands and enjoyed full rights. The status of women was not low in the Vedic period. They enjoyed their social and religious life.
Women, generally, misuse laws to take revenge against their husbands or any other men. Being a man is very typical, it is predecided that men are strong and a wrongdoer is always a man. Society and courts have already set their minds that women cannot do any wrong and all women are the weakest on this planet. When a woman files a case against a man for harassment they are guilty until proven innocent. When things are right, all is good, but when the situation gets worse, women turn all happy moments into incidents of harassment by men. Women manipulate the situation as they want. This is all because they are pre-defined victims.
Media plays a vital role in violating the rights of men. It shows men as the accused and women as the serious victims Although, this may be true in some cases most of the cases are the opposite. Before the actual trial of the man before the court, the media set the mind of the public that men are always be an accused. The government ignores the aspect of men. There may indeed be some men, who are accused, but there are lot of other innocent men who have their rights. so, why should they be victimized and harassed, by attending the courts or any other institutions in fake cases by women? The Criminal Law Bill,2013 which got presidential assent on 2nd april 2013 and is in effect as the Criminal Law Act, 2013 is less in favour of women and more targeted against men.
The basic rights of men are more restricted by the new amendments. They are very strict. Men cannot move here and there. They cannot see where the lady is sitting or standing, otherwise, they will be charged for Voyeurism under sec 354-c of IPC
They cannot go on the way a woman is going, or else they will be charged for stalking under sec 354-d of IPC’
India has been a male-dominant society for ages, and it is hard to believe that males can be a victim and females a perpetrator. Domestic violence against men in India is not recognized by the law as well. However, contrary to common belief, there are a growing number of men who are at the receiving end of harassment and face psychological and physical abuse by women.
What happens when the law becomes a tool for extortion? Why does the law’s empathy often falter when the victim is a man, leaving them to suffer in silence? These questions have been raised after the recent suicides of two men. Puneet Khurana, a well-known Delhi café owner, tragically died by suicide on January 1 after leaving a video message accusing his wife and her parents of severe harassment and cruelty.
According to the data of the National Crime Bureau, 1,80,000 men had committed suicides in the years 2022 and 2023. And in those years only 1,26,0000 women had committed suicide. all this data shows the pitiable condition of Indian men.
This is the most draconian law ever and was referred to as “legal terrorism” by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Under this law, if a woman goes to the police station and files a first information report against her husband and his family, accusing them of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act and s. 498A, I.P.C., they are automatically considered guilty.
The men have the lack of protection and proper voice. Men are aggrieved of domestic violence and also the victims of the misuse of these laws. Only 41% of cases of domestic violence and dowry harassment, filed against men and their families, are true and the rest of the cases is false and fake. These fake cases are filed to extort money. It is all done in the premises of the court itself. At last woman wins the case which was fake all happened due to the presumption of the court.
Less than a month earlier, Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old deputy general manager, ended his life on December 9, leaving behind a 24-page suicide note and an 81-minute video alleging severe harassment by his estranged wife, her mother and her brother. Subhash detailed his ordeal, accusing them of extortion demands and filing multiple false cases against him, including charges of murder, dowry harassment and unnatural sex.
These shocking incidents raise a difficult but necessary question: Why should a victim of marital cruelty, in these cases, a husband, be legally compelled to financially support the very individual who caused his suffering?
Although Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allow husbands to claim maintenance and alimony from wives, this can be invoked only during the divorce proceedings. However, wives can claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, of 2005 even without seeking a divorce. Only the wives are entitled to claim monetary relief from the husbands for any kind of domestic violence.
This asymmetry is based on the presumption that only husbands are perpetrators of domestic violence, ignoring the possibility of cruelty by wives. Consequently, there is no equivalent legal protection for husbands against domestic violence and to claim maintenance without seeking divorce proceedings. This may be one of the factors for the rate of suicide among Indian men being 2.5 times that among women (study by IIPS, Deonar).
Additionally, the law of the land, as developed by judicial decisions, is that if the wife is not earning or earns less than the husband, she is entitled to maintenance or alimony, even if the court grants the divorce due to the wife’s cruelty. The amount must be sufficient to maintain the standard of living she had during the marriage. While this provision aims to provide financial security to women, it often places an undue burden on men, especially in cases where the wife is the perpetrator of cruelty.
Furthermore, the standard of living test, which determines the amount of maintenance, is often flawed. The assumption that a woman’s standard of living must be maintained in the same way it was during the marriage fails to take into account situations where the marriage was short-lived or where the woman has not spent enough time in the relationship to have developed a high standard of living. This test also becomes problematic when the wife is the one who initiates the divorce and commits cruelty to procure divorce expeditiously.
The time has come for the legislature to rethink and make the current laws gender-neutral. It is no longer enough to assume that only women are victims in marriages. Just as laws have evolved to protect women from domestic violence, similar provisions must be extended to men who find themselves in abusive situations. It must be recognized that laws were initially framed to protect women as the country transitioned from a patriarchal society. However, these laws are now increasingly being misused. Therefore, the legislature must address this issue to prevent the misuse of such provisions. This will ensure the realization of a society free from the harassment of any gender.
The idea of pre-nuptial agreements, which allow couples to outline the terms of their relationship, should also be explored to offer clarity and fairness in case of a divorce. Furthermore, maintenance laws should be adjusted to account for situations where the wife is financially independent or earns more than the husband. In such cases, the husband should have the right to claim maintenance if he is the one facing hardship. This would help address the growing trend of women exploiting maintenance laws as a source of income, as seen in some instances where women have used alimony as a means to financially benefit from multiple marriages.
One of the most pressing issues that needs to be addressed is the absence of legal protection for men against domestic violence. Just as women can seek relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, similar provisions should be made available for men. The law should recognise that both men and women are capable of cruelty and abuse, and both should have access to the same level of protection. In cases where a husband has suffered from emotional, financial, or physical abuse, he should be able to seek relief and protection under the law without facing societal stigma. Further, the law should be made gender-neutral in such a way that if the wife is earning more, the husband should get the maintenance.
Similarly, Section 113A (when the wife commits suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband) has to be made gender neutral given the exponential rise in suicides by husbands.
The current legal system, while designed to protect the vulnerable, often places an unfair burden on one gender. For many men, the very system that is meant to provide relief becomes another tool of abuse, leaving them trapped in a cycle of financial and emotional distress. It is time for the legislature to recognize the flaws in the existing laws and make them truly gender-neutral. The law should not punish the victim, whether male or female, and should ensure that both parties in a marriage are treated fairly and justly.
The tragic deaths of Puneet Khurana and Atul Subhash must serve as a wake-up call for the legal system. The existing laws, while well-intentioned, need to evolve to address the reality that marital cruelty can be perpetrated by either spouse. Until such changes are made, the cycle of injustice and suffering will continue, claiming more victims like them.
