It is important to acknowledge that domestic violence can affect individuals of any gender. However, the current legal framework in India is primarily geared towards protecting women from abuse and violence in domestic settings. As a result, men who experience abuse and violence at the hands of their spouses may feel that they have limited legal recourse.
A recent case reported by the Hindustan Times highlights this issue, as a husband has filed a complaint of domestic violence against his wife at the Mahila Court in Karkardooma, and the case has been admitted for further proceedings.
In response to the domestic violence complaint filed by the husband, the wife has filed a challenge to the proceedings at the Delhi High Court, arguing that the Domestic Violence Act is not applicable to cases involving a husband as the complainant.
The Honorable Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court has issued a stay on the proceedings in the trial court and has ordered the husband to file a response to the challenge. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing at a later date.
Wife’s Plea in HC
The woman, seeking to quash the complaint against her, had approached the high court, saying the trial is untenable in law because the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005 defines the aggrieved person as “woman/female”.
In her plea filed through advocate Ashima Mandla and Mandakini Singh, the woman has said that the initiation of proceedings by the magistrate at the Mahila court, Karkardooma under the DV Act “are ex-facie untenable in law and it is substantiated by Section 2(a) of the DV Act which defines aggrieved person as ‘woman/female’ only”.
The plea added,
As per the scheme and object of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the intent of the legislature is resolute that recourse to protection under the DV Act is qua an ‘aggrieved person’ defined u/s 2(a) which is intentionally and solemnly limited to only ‘woman’ under the Act and hence, a complaint filed by the Respondent-husband under the DV Act is ex-facie not maintainable and deserves to be quashed in toto.
The plea further argued that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is inherently biased against men, and therefore should not apply in this case.
Even in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, only a female person shall be aggrieved for the purposes of Section 498A IPC, whereas the accused/perpetrator may be male/female and hence gender neutral.
The plea has also alleged that the respondent-husband has publicly disseminated information through various media outlets suggesting that men are able to seek legal remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which the plea argues is not the case.
VFMI Take:
This case highlights the inherent inconsistencies and biases present in the legal protections afforded to individuals based on their gender.
In the year 2023, despite ongoing efforts by women’s rights advocates to address inequalities in the legal system, there remains a disconnect between the rhetoric and reality of the protections and rights afforded to women in society.
The matrimonial laws in India are often criticized for being unjustly biased against men, failing to provide them with fair and equitable outcomes in legal proceedings.
The legal framework in India is perceived as overwhelmingly favoring wives in matrimonial disputes, with husbands who are the victims of cruelty or abuse often facing pressure to pay lifelong maintenance or alimony, with limited options for legal recourse.
This case serves as a clear example of how, despite facing charges, the accused wife is not contesting the allegations, but rather, challenging the limitations in the legal system that prevent the allegedly harassed husband from seeking justice.