THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW OF INDIA – A SHIELD OR A SWORD ?

THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW OF INDIA – A SHIELD OR A SWORD

Feminist organizations have unequivocally and unanimously hailed the
implementation of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act in India. They claim
that this law will empower victims and protect them from abuse.

Most people in their right state of mind would agree that domestic
violence in a relationship is not acceptable. It is only fair that for
their own mental and emotional health and for the well-being of the
children, that the victims be protected from abusive partners.

On the face of it, the law appears to be a blessing for people in
abusive or violent relationships. However, a careful analysis reveals
that, under the ploy of "women and children welfare", this law is yet
another misguided attempt to enact legislation to grant women legal
supremacy over men and to create a society where men are deprived of
their rights.

There are three fundamental problems with this law – a) it is
overwhelmingly gender biased in favor of women, b) the potential for
misuse is astounding and c) the definition of domestic violence is too
expansive.

The DV act singles out men as perpetrators of domestic violence and
assumes that only women are victims. As per this law, only a woman can
file a complaint against her male partner. A man, who is a victim of
domestic violence, has no rights under this law. The fact is that it
has been comprehensively proven in numerous studies [please see
references] that women are no less abusive as men in intimate
relationships. Giving such sweeping legal powers to women while
withholding protection to male victims is tantamount to systematic
legal victimization of men. In the western world, the domestic
violence laws are gender neutral and provide protection to the
victims, both men and women. The fact that the Indian version
explicitly prohibits any male victim to seek relief under this law
defies all logic and is beyond comprehension.

The second significant flaw in this law is that it lends itself to
such easy misuse that women will find it hard to resist the temptation
to "teach a lesson" to their male relatives and will file frivolous
and false cases. A similar trend is already being observed in the case
of anti-dowry law (498a), which is being misused to such an extent
that the Supreme Court has termed it "Legal Terrorism". To illustrate
how easy it is to misuse the DV law, consider the scenarios below.
[She means wife/female live-in partner and he means husband/male
live-in partner]

a) If she demands any amount of money from him, for any reason
whatsoever, he is legally bound to pay that amount in full, failing
which he can be imprisoned. Under the pretext of preventing economic
abuse of women, this law legalizes the extortion of money by women.
Interestingly, if he asks for money from her, he can be jailed for
that as well. Furthermore, he is responsible for paying the rent if
the couple resides in a shared rented accommodation.

b) As per the law, she retains the right to the residence. This
is a very convenient means of getting control of the house regardless
of whether she has any legal right on the property. Moreover, if he is
booked under DV, he is responsible for paying the rent as well, even
though he may not be allowed to live in the house or he might even be
in jail.

c) If she decides not to cook and wishes to eat out in a
restaurant everyday, he cannot afford not to oblige, lest he invites
the DV provision for "not providing food", for which he could be
jailed.

d) If she has an affair and he tries to prevent her from meeting
her lover, he could be punished under the DV act, as he is preventing
her from meeting someone.

e) He can be booked under the DV act if she feels that she has
been insulted. Insult is a relative term, which is totally left to her
discretion. Interestingly, if she insults and abuses him verbally or
even physically, he does not have any legal recourse in this law

These are just some of the ways in which women can exploit men in a
legally permitted manner. The fact that the complaint by a woman will
be treated, prima facie, as "true and genuine" opens up a whole new
realm of possibilities where innocent men will be accused and
implicated in false cases, just because they refuse to give in to her
unreasonable demands.

Most people readily agree that the law will be misused. Their counter
arguments generally are
a) The number of miuses will be very low OR every law is misused
– The objective of any law should be to punish the guilty and protect
the innocent. The persecution of innocents cannot be justified in any
circumstances. As is the case with 498a, this law will be heavily
misused in urban India.

b) If she is happy, then why will she file a complaint – Ah ! So,
the man exists at the mercy of the woman. If the wife wants to kick
out old parents from home or wants to pursue an affair and should the
man dare to object, she can get him incarcerated with alacrity. Any
law that forcefully subjects a section of a society to conduct as per
the pleasure of another section is deemed oppressive and should be
vehemently opposed.

c) There are other provisions to deal with the misuse of this law
– The fact is that there are other legal provisions to deal with
domestic violence as well. If a strict law is made for a specific
purpose, then the provisions for dealing with its misuse should be in
the law itself.

The third major flaw in this law is that it provides an
all-encompassing definition of domestic violence and some terms
(insults, name calling) are extremely subjective. The radical
feminists claim that 70% of women in India face domestic violence
which comes as no surprise as even an insult is considered domestic
violence. Interestingly, they are mum on how many indian men suffer
domestic violence using the same criteria. This law strikes at the
very foundation of marriage by promoting intolerance and litigation
for petty domestic disputes. It is universally recognized that from
time to time differences arise in a marriage and sometimes people,
both men and women, behave in hurtful ways towards each other. Most
people, though, are able to work them out and lead a more or less
happy life with their loved one. However, this law makes it very easy
to escalate the domestic problems in daily life to such a level that
it eventually leads to a breakdown in marriage. Once a man has been
accused of domestic violence for a something relatively minor
(insult), while he might have been subjected to the same treatment
from her, he will perpetually feel threatened by his partner and that
is the beginning of the end. This law will lead to more divorces,
broken homes and the children will pay the ultimate price by getting
deprived of a pleasant childhood.

There are degrees of domestic violence and not all conflicts in a
relationship can be termed as domestic violence. This law trivializes
the issue of domestic violence by including minor differences in its
realm and by explicitly denying protection to half of the population.
The law in its current form is grossly inadequate to tackle the
problem of domestic violence. It imposes a lot of responsibility on
men, without giving them rights. On the other hand, it gives lots of
rights to women without requiring them to be responsible. At the very
minimum, it should be made gender neutral, offering protection to both
men and women. Also, provisions for stringent punishments need to be
incorporated into the law to prevent misuse. Moreover, the law needs
to be made more practical by differentiating between various degrees
of conflicts and by unambiguously defining what constitutes domestic
violence.

The fact is domestic violence is a serious problem and a neutral and
unprejudiced law is needed to protect the genuine victims of domestic
violence, irrespective of gender. The perpetrators of domestic
violence need to be appropriately punished and dealt with. At the same
time, protection cannot be withheld from real victims for any reason
whatsoever, least of all their gender. One can be certain that there
is something sinister about a law, when it intimidates and instills
fear in innocent people. When a person who has not committed any
crime, begins to fear punishment under the provisions of a law, it is
not a law anymore – it is state sponsored terrorism.