Author: Riddhi Patel, a student of Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Law
TO THE POINT
In India, domestic violence constitutes a serious breach of an individual’s dignity and liberty. The domestic violence law in India, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), only legally recognises domestic violence against women. The PWDVA is the main law relating to domestic violence and its provisions are specifically intended to address the historical injustices that women have suffered as a result of domestic abuse. As a consequence, the PWDVA specifically excludes men who are also suffering from abuse in a domestic relationship. This is particularly concerning for men who are subjected to physical violence, emotional manipulation, verbal humiliation or verbal and economic control, or psychological trauma. These men do not have rights to civil remedies, protection orders, or institutional support systems. While male victims can technically seek relief in criminal courts under the Indian Penal Code, these remedies often do not have the ability to address the ongoing nature of domestic violence. Criminal law’s focus is primarily on punishment; there is little focus on prevention, protection, or rehabilitation. As such, men are largely invisible in regards to the existing laws in India regarding domestic violence and this raises issues of equality under the law, access to justice, and dignity as guaranteed by the Constitution.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
There are many specific legal terminologies used in discussing Domestic Violence laws. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), Section 2(a), the term “aggrieved person” refers only to women who prepare to claim a domestic violence case. This effectively eliminates men from being able to claim any rights under this law. Civil remedies offered by the PWDVA consist of protection orders that keep respondents from committing any future acts of violence, residence orders that provide victims with access to or the right to a shared household, monetary relief for out-of-pocket expenses related to the abuse, custody orders and compensation for mental suffering. These are preventive and restorative remedies that are very different from criminal ramifications as provided for under the Indian Penal Code which are punishing.
Economic abuse includes the economic impact of the abuser’s actions, such as having access to financial resources and/or limits imposed by an abuser on the victim’s access to income.
Psychological cruelty is defined as acts of verbal abuse to insult, humiliation, intimidation and emotional manipulation. These forms of abuse are recognised by the PWDVA and have legal recognition; however, the PWDVA provides protections only for women. The lack of domestic violence laws applied to both genders raises serious Constitutional concerns under Articles 14 and 21 (equality under the law and the right to a dignified life) of the Constitution of India.
ABSTRACT
The Gendered Approach to Domestic Violence Laws in India and Its Impact on Male Victims-
Under current domestic violence laws in India, the distinction between abuse against men and women is made using a gendered understanding of domestic violence. This understanding places women first as victims of abuse with regards to protection, while ignoring the real-life experiences of male domestic violence victims. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, offers civil remedies to women that are comprehensive and includes no such provision for male victims, regardless of the severity or type of abuse experienced.
The current legislative framework for domestic abuse and violence against men should be reviewed to identify statutory and institutional gaps and the need to change existing legislation to reflect a more realistic view of domestic violence against both men and women. The courts in India are further exacerbating the situation by continually supporting the exclusion of male victims from receiving legal recognition as victims of domestic violence.
In order to create a more equitable and just legal system in India, the existing legal framework for domestic violence needs to be revised and updated. In doing so, the legal system will be enhanced through the recognition of male victims of domestic violence while still providing protection to female victims of domestic violence.
THE PROOF: STATUTORY AND INSTITUTIONAL GAPS IN LAW
Exclusion of Men under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
A glaring gap in India’s Domestic Violence Law (Domestic Violence) is explicitly excluding men from the law’s application. Section 2(a) of Domestic Violence defines a “person being abused” as a female who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent to abuse. Therefore, men are statutorily prevented from taking advantage of the Domestic Violence Act and may not seek assistance as men, even though the level and form of abuse may have been equally serious. Therefore, if a male is the victim of constant harassment, abuse, or financial exploitation by his spouse or family, he is unable to obtain protection, services, or monetary compensation under the Domestic Violence Act.
The exclusion of males as an acknowledged “victim” creates issues with the Domestic Violence Act, as it contains provisions against both physical and emotional abuse (which can often not be substantiated through criminal charges). By making the Domestic Violence Act unavailable to males based solely upon their sex, it creates an unfair distinction and discredits men who are victims of domestic violence.
Inadequacy of Criminal Law Remedies for Male Victims
In India, men who have been affected by Domestic Violence are frequently informed to pursue resolution under the IPC (Indian Penal Code). Although offences including the act of voluntarily causing bodily harm, criminal intimidation and the wrongful restraint of someone all fall within the definition of an offence; the criminal law does not necessarily fit the pattern of domestic Violence as it continues to occur within a Relationship. The criminal court process is adversarial, takes a long time to resolve and focuses more on punishing than on protecting. The criminal courts cannot give you Immediate Relief from the following: restraining orders, temporary safe housing and financial support.
In addition, there are many other types of Domestic Abuse that occur to men, too. The most obvious examples of these would be Verbal, Emotional and Financial Abuse. None of these types of Injury fall easily under the legal definition of crimes, unless they become an extreme form of Behaviour. As such, male Survivors of Domestic Violence are often left without any assistance in dealing with the ongoing Psychological Trauma created as a result of their abusive Relationships.
Absence of Institutional Support Mechanisms for Men
Protection Officers, Shelter Homes and Counselling Services are mandated by PWDVA. All these institutional mechanisms are designed for women only. Currently, there are very few state funded shelters or counselling centres for male domestic violence victims. Moreover, Protection Officers have no training or authority to help male complainants. The lack of these Institutional Supports further strengthens the false notion that Men cannot be victims of Domestic Violence and discourage reports from male victims. As a result of not having Institutional Support, many male victims suffer abuse in silence or must find informal and unsafe methods to escape.
Invisible Psychological and Economic Abuse
Domestic violence is characterized by two forms of abuse: psychological and economic. The PWVDA defines both types of abuse, noting that, in addition to physical injury, individuals have been harmed by other types of abuse. When men are subjected to similar types of abuse, there is no State legal response; therefore, there is no recourse under the Criminal Law for the continual psychological manipulation, ridicule, threats, and/or financial control unless the abuse reaches a certain threshold of severity and meets the other elements of a crime. This denies all male victims who are physically assaulted the ability to have their non-physical injuries recognised and remedied even though they are just as harmful to a male victim as they are incompatible for a female victim.
Gender Asymmetry in Maintenance and Family Law
Almost every form of Family Law in India places responsibility on a husband to maintain his wife, even though there are some statutes that allow for limited exceptions to this general rule of law, and these statutes are practically never used to obtain relief for men.
Men who are financially dependent on their partners face additional challenges in getting a maintenance or financial support order which keeps them financially tied to the partnership making it harder for them to leave an abusive relationship.
This type of asymmetry within the law is based on outdated gender norms that do not reflect the new realities of today’s society, where many women have become the primary wage earners within their families and many men find themselves in financial need of having to rely on others.
Social Stigma and Underreporting
Legal inadequacies are attributed to social expectations of masculinity. It denies harshly that men are abused, and that such accusations shouldn’t be taken seriously, and eventually it leads to rejection of male victims so that they do not end up as statistics. Men do not report abuse out of shame for being ridiculed, disbelieved, and also losing their societal position. Because law enforcement does not always take male victims seriously and instead law treats domestic violence as a female issue, there are many men who suffer and never report it or receive help. As a consequence of the above-mentioned factors, there is no valid data or accurate statistics regarding the number of men abused or injured by domestic violence.
CASE LAWS: JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND LIMITATIONS
Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
Supreme Court strikes down ‘adult male’ from Sec 2(q) of PWDVA. The Supreme Court has allowed women to file complaints against adult female relatives. The Supreme Court extended the list of people who may receive notice to include women, but did not change the definition of the person affected. Men continued to be barred from relief under the Act. The Supreme Court highlighted the gender specific nature of the Act and noted its limitations.
S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra
The interpretation of ‘shared household’ was examined in the case of S.R. Batra. The Supreme Court determined that a woman’s right to reside in a shared household is limited to property that is either owned by or rented to her husband. The ruling limited residence rights to women only, leaving male victims who are forcibly removed from their homes without any corresponding rights to reside.
V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot
In its decision in V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, the Supreme Court stated that even though the Domestic Violence Act was enacted after the incidents of domestic violence, those prior acts may still be addressed under the Act. The decision retroactively strengthened the protections for women, but continued to exclude men from seeking relief for domestic violence based upon events prior to the enactment of the Act.
K.Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa
In this judgement, the Supreme Court acknowledged that mental cruelty is a legitimate ground for obtaining divorce in accordance with article 12(2) which has an element of psychological abuse of spouses during marriages. Although the Supreme Court’s recognition of such abusive behaviour supports only a person’s right to obtain matrimonial relief, it does not provide any means for men to obtain protection from domestic violence under the PWDVA.
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma
The Courts have widened the definition of what constitutes a ‘Domestic Relationship’ for the purposes of the PWDVA to include not only legally married couples but also couples in live-in relationships. Despite the fact that this development is significant, the Act will only be available for the benefit of women; men who are in a live-in relationship will continue to not receive similar protections from the legislation.
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
The Supreme Court of India has made a broader interpretation of the term ‘Shared Household’ and overturned prior restrictive definitions.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision broadened the definition of ‘Shared Household’, it has placed considerable emphasis on women’s rights to use housing. However, at the same time, it also highlighted the fact that there is no statutory mechanism in place to address the housing insecurity experienced by a number of male victims.
CONCLUSION
The new laws initiated to protect women from violence in their homes are advantageous to women but there remain significant obstacles for many male victims of domestic violence due to discriminatory legislation and policies. Men exposed to violence in the domestic environment lack access to remedies under civil law, institutional assistance, and legal recognition of their circumstances. This forces them to rely on limited criminal law provisions.
A gender-neutral domestic violence law would not lessen the protections provided to women. Instead, it would ensure that all victims of domestic violence are protected equally under the law; thereby providing an equal opportunity for women and men to seek assistance from the judiciary. Domestic violence against a woman is an infringement of human rights; it is not solely a gender issue. As roles of society change, so must the law evolve to guarantee justice to all individuals who become victims of abuse in the domestic environment.
In conclusion, it should be recognised that domestic violence is a violation of human rights that crosses over the boundary of gender. Laws should adapt to reflect societal realities and constitutional values by recognising that males can also be victims of domestic abuse. Providing a gender-neutral legal framework will create greater access to justice for male victims of domestic violence; thus, enhancing the credibility, fairness and moral authority of India’s domestic violence jurisprudence. The concept of true justice does not reside in the selective protection of one group; rather, it resides in the equal recognition of the suffering endured and the equal commitment to dignity for all individuals suffering from domestic violence.
