Domestic Violence is one of the major problems that men in India often suffer at the hands of their wives or intimate partners. However, India is a patriarchal society. Hence, this country hardly considers this matter as an important issue. In India, there is a general perception that men cannot be victims of Domestic Violence as they are masculine in nature. This notion helps women in getting away with the charges. The term ‘Domestic Violence’ not only means physical beating, as per the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it also includes “sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, and economic abuse” along with physical abuse.

Further, studies state that 52.4% of men face gender-based violence, with 51.5% experiencing it from wives/partners in their lifetime and 10.5% in the last year. Most common spousal violence includes emotional (51.6%) and physical (6%) abuse. Indian laws label domestic violence as a crime but only protect women, revealing bias. Laws intended to empower women end up exacerbating the lives of Indian men, becoming a significant issue.

In 1983, Section 498A IPC was introduced with the assertive object to combat the threat of dowry deaths and harassment of a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Ordinarily, the charged persons in these cases include mostly females of all ages (unmarried, married sisters of the husband, his mother, sisters-in-law, old grandmothers, and aunts). Other maternal and fatherly family relatives are also included, and surprisingly, young children in the family, too.

Section 498A IPC is a cognizable, non-compoundable, and non-bailable offense, preventing the court from recording compromise or dropping charges. Offenders face imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. The complainant can’t be withdrawn by the petitioner. Originally aimed at protecting women from domestic harassment, it’s now misused for revenge, false cases, or divorce coercion. This misuse highlights the need for reform to prevent exploitation and ensure justice for both genders in cases of domestic conflict.

Even on a solitary complaint from the wife, the husband, and his entire family can be confined in jail, with an estimated 40,000 allegations every year under Section 498A alone. In each of these cases, an average of 5 individuals from the husband’s family is embroiled. This means around 200,000 individuals are directly affected annually. This misuse of the law for settling scores has led the Supreme Court to declare it as ‘legal terrorism.’

Furthermore, Section 304B of the IPC terms certain deaths where a woman commits suicide or dies under unreasonable circumstances within seven years of marriage as ‘dowry death’ if cruelty or harassment related to dowry is proven. The situation worsens with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which ‘presumes’ suicide as abetted by the husband or his relatives if cruelty is proven. This legislative framework exacerbates the plight of Indian husbands, making them hand puppets of their in-laws.

Indian Courts are already well aware of the fact that wives and intimate partners of men file fake dowry cases against them to claim benefits and harass men. While quashing a case filed by a woman against her in-laws in May 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, expressing its concern against misuse of Section 498A, observed that “it has become a common practice by disgruntled wives to use the provisions of Section 498A of IPC as a weapon rather than a shield.” Further, the bench stated that “the simplest way to harass is to get the relatives of the husband roped in under this provision, no matter if they are bedridden grandparents of the husband or the relatives living abroad for decades.”

In 2014, for the first time, the apex court addressed the issue of ‘misuse’ of Section 498 in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. In this case, the Hon’ble Court laid down certain guidelines that should be followed by the police officer while arresting any person under Section 498A, IPC, or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Further, the Hon’ble Court stated that “such arrest must be based on a reasonable satisfaction with respect to genuineness of the allegation. Moreover, even the Magistrates must be careful enough not to authorise detention casually and mechanically.”

NCRB data shows around 100,000 cases filed annually under Section 498A, with conviction rates ranging from 20% in 2011 to 14% in 2015. In 2015, IPC sections saw a 46% conviction rate, while in 2016, Section 498A had a mere 12.2% conviction rate. This stark contrast suggests a significant number of false cases against men under Section 498A. In response, the Supreme Court, in Rajesh Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P., introduced a ‘Family Welfare Committee (FWM)’ to tackle misuse. The court mandated all Section 498A complaints be referred to the FWM, which submits a report before any arrest.

However, the judgment drew criticism from feminist groups, while NGOs supporting male victims welcomed it, stating that “The extortion aspect now has been done away with.” However, in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared FWM impermissible, noting that its duties do not align with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, leaving men vulnerable to false cases once more.

The increasing incidence of false complaints against men is a serious violation of basic human rights. Accused under Section 498A of the IPC face immediate consequences without the chance to prove innocence, contrary to the principle of “justice delayed is justice denied.” This infringes upon their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, is also compromised as men accused of malicious complaints are treated as ‘criminals’ without the benefit of the doubt. This undermines the core principle of fairness enshrined in Article 14. Consequently, urgent reforms are necessary to address this issue and ensure that justice is served impartially to all parties involved, safeguarding the rights and dignity of every individual.

Mostly, husbands, parents, and close relatives are the primary targets of such cases. Even if the accused have family members in the legal field, they’re also targeted, hindering access to legal aid. Immediate arrest follows accusations, lacking thorough investigation, leading to non-bailable imprisonment. Despite malicious complaints, the burden of proving innocence lies with the accused. However, some legal provisions offer assistance to victims of such domestic violence.

If the alleged person suspects police involvement in aiding his wife with fake documents, they can file a case under Section 167 of IPC. Similarly, under Section 191 of IPC, if false evidence is presented in court or at the police station, the alleged person can file a case of giving False Evidence, a case of Criminal Conspiracy against the wife under Section 120B of IPC, alleging that she, along with her family members, conspired to commit a crime against them.

Furthermore, under Section 500 of the IPC, the accused, along with family and relatives, have the right to reputation, allowing them to take legal action against defamation attempts resulting from false accusations. Additionally, Criminal Intimidation charges under Section 506 of IPC can be filed if threats have been made against the accused, their family, or property. Applying for discharge of proceedings under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is another option for alleged persons, provided there is substantial evidence to prove the falsity of the case and insufficient evidence from the opposition.

Evidence collection is crucial to defend against false accusations. Record conversations between you, your family members, your wife, and your in-laws. Gather witnesses, photos, recordings, etc., showing no dowry demands. This evidence aids in securing anticipatory bail.

To deal with the misuse of Section 498A of IPC, there is an urgent need to dilute the same so that this section might act as a shield for the protection of women from their in-laws instead of a tool to unleash Domestic Violence on men. The 243^rd Law Commission Report has also stated that it is impossible to re-evaluate the misuse of Section 498A. It has also been pointed out that the police officer must exercise their power with due caution in ‘cognizable cases’ keeping Section 41 and 41A of the Code of Civil Procedure in mind. It attempts to focus on providing the solution with the help of the above-mentioned sections.

The conviction rate in dowry cases reflects its use as a tool to torment husbands and in-laws. While the provision aims to safeguard women, it also fosters a detrimental societal impact. If legislators cannot enact laws to protect men from domestic violence, they should at least reassess and reform this section to prevent the harassment of the innocent.