Man - An Unrecognized Domestic Violence Victim

Key Takeaways

• The situation of helpless Indian men.
• Patriarchal thinking of the Indian society against the male victims.
• Discussed Section 2(q) and 2(a) of the DV Act.
• Discussed the cases of Hiral P Harsora vs Narottamdas Harsora & Ors,Mohammad Zakirv. Shabana.
• Analyzed the recent decision of the J&KCourt.

Introduction

The famous dialogue of Amitabh Bachchan "Mard ko dard nhi hota" is no longer true. A recent video of a school principal, in which the wife of the principal is beating him, compels us to think that the current Domestic Violence Act, which only protects women from domestic violence, is not sufficient in this era.

Nowadays the situation of the Indian husband is like Bhisma Pitamha of Mahabharat, who could've stopped Duryodhana from war. But was unable to do so just because of promises he made.In today's scenario, the husband can't stop the violence being perpetrated on him by his wife because of various razor-sharp legal weapons available to the wife.

Domestic Violence against Men

It is a harsh reality that Indian men are facing domestic violence at the hands of their wives or female partners. However, neither legislature nor our judiciary has taken any stand on addressing it. Domestic Violence is a serious social issue, but men who face domestic violence in India have nowhere to go since the law doesn't treat them as victims.

The patriarchal thinking of the Indian society that "Mard ko dard nhi hota"must be changed.Most abused men neither run away from their abusers nor apply for divorce, because of Societal and family pressure,Fear of false cases,and in some cases, they are afraid of losing access to their beloved children. The social stigma attached to the men abused by women also stops them from coming forward.

In 2004, the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) found that about 1.8% or an estimated 60 lakh women have perpetrated physical violence against husbands without any provocation. It must be noted that legal weapons available to women pave the path for abuse of men.

Case Laws & Commentary

We have a plethora of SupremeCourt judgments talking about Section2 (q) of the domestic Violence Act that reads as follows:

"(q) "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner"

In the case of Hiral P Harsora vs Narottamdas Harsora & Ors, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court stated that the words 'adult male' mentioned in Section 2(q) of DV Act 2005 would stand deleted as the words did not square with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and the proviso to Section 2(q) would also stand deleted as it did not serve any purpose.

But Section 2(a) of the Act, which defines "aggrieved person", clearly bars the husband from filing a complaint under the said act. A bare perusal and the intent of the legislature coupled with the literal interpretation of section 2(a) clearly restrict men from filing a complaint under the DV Act.

"(a)"aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent"

Section 2 (a) of the DV Act clearly violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India because it only allows women to file complaints under the Act.

The courts and legislature are taking time to understand the fact that men also need protection from domestic violence, but gradually our judiciary has been taking some steps forward to improve the situation.

In a case involving allegations that a lady had filed a domestic violence complaint against her husband only to harass him, the Madras High Court had made interesting observations about the Domestic Violence Act and marriages.

Hon'ble Justice S Vaidyanathan of the High Court of Madras expressed concern that there was no law like the Domestic Violence Act to deal with the complaint against women in domestic relationships.

In Mohammed Zakir vs Smt. Shabana, Justice Anand Byrareddy of the High Court of Karnataka remarked that a male petitioner could also invoke provisions of the DV Act and the Court would have to entertain the petition.

But the Karnataka High court withdrew its judgment after the intervention of the Honorable Apex court.

A J&K court recently took cognizance of a complaint filed by a husband against a wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.Judicial Magistrate of Jammu, Renu Dogra Gupta relied on the judgments in Hiral P Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsoraand& Mohammad Zakir v. Shabana, where it was stated that a husband could also file a case against a wife under the DV Act.

However, the order given by the J&K Court essentially misinterpreted Hiral P Harsora's case and incorrectly relied on Mohammad Zakir's case to support the misinterpretation. Because in the Hiral P Harsora's case,the Apex court only stressed on Section 2(q) of the act and omitted the word "adult male" from the definition of "respondent". And Mohammad Zakir's case could not have been used as a precedent because the Karnataka High court withdrew it.

In conclusion, Gender-neutral laws are the need of the hour and it's high time for the government and judiciary to recognize a Male's right and enable him to file a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act.

The author is an Advocate practicing before Rajasthan High Courts. Views expressed are personal.