Adv Salini T S, LLM
The Constitution of India, under Articles 14 and 15, guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex. Article 14 enshrines the principle of equality, permitting reasonable classification only if it is rational and bears a nexus to the object of the law. Article 15(3) allows the State to make special provisions for women and children, acknowledging historical vulnerabilities. However, this enabling provision cannot justify perpetual gender-specific legislation when empirical evidence demonstrates that domestic violence transcends gender binaries.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) were enacted to address systemic cruelty against married women, including dowry-related harassment. While these laws have provided critical relief to genuine victims, judicial observations and statistical data reveal significant misuse, alongside a growing recognition of domestic violence perpetrated against men. This asymmetry raises a fundamental legal question: Does the absence of equivalent protective mechanisms for men violate the constitutional guarantee of equality? This article examines the legal gaps, judicial pronouncements, empirical evidence—including Kerala-specific realities—and the imperative for gender-neutral reforms.
Existing Legal Framework and Its Gender-Specific Nature
The PWDVA provides comprehensive civil remedies—protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, and custody orders—exclusively to “aggrieved persons” defined as women in a domestic relationship. Section 498A IPC criminalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman, with non-bailable and cognizable offences.
General criminal provisions under the IPC (e.g., Sections 323, 506 for hurt and criminal intimidation) apply neutrally, but they lack the specialized civil remedies of the PWDVA, such as the right to reside in a shared household or expedited monetary relief. Men alleging domestic violence must resort to protracted criminal litigation or general civil suits, without access to protection officers, service providers, or magistrates’ courts tailored for domestic disputes.
This framework creates a legal asymmetry: women benefit from both specific and general remedies, while men are confined to general provisions, often inadequate for addressing emotional, economic, or psychological abuse in domestic settings.
Judicial Recognition of Misuse and Its Implications
The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against the misuse of gender-specific laws, particularly Section 498A IPC, describing it as a provision prone to being weaponized in matrimonial disputes.
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), the Court issued guidelines mandating preliminary inquiry before arrest under Section 498A to prevent unnecessary harassment.
In Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017), the Court noted the “phenomenal increase” in dowry complaints and introduced family welfare committees for scrutiny (later diluted in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, 2018).
More recently, in judgments reported in 2025, the Supreme Court has quashed proceedings based on vague allegations, acquitting husbands in long-pending cases while observing that misuse amounts to “abuse of the process of law.” In one instance, a 26-year-old case was set aside due to lack of specific evidence of cruelty.
The Court has also acknowledged that while genuine cases far outnumber misuses, the latter cause irreversible harm, including social stigma, financial ruin, and mental trauma to innocent accused and their families.
These observations underscore a systemic issue: the presumption of male perpetration embedded in the law facilitates misuse, inverting the burden of proof and compelling accused men to prove innocence—a reversal of fundamental criminal jurisprudence principles.
High Courts, including the Kerala High Court, have echoed these concerns in regional contexts, often quashing proceedings where allegations appear exaggerated or vindictive.
Domestic Violence Against Men: Empirical Evidence and Case Laws
Domestic violence is not gender-exclusive. Independent studies reveal significant prevalence against men:
A cross-sectional study in Mumbai found that 51.5% of men experienced violence from intimate partners. Another survey indicated 52.4% of men faced gender-based violence. Reports highlight emotional, economic, and physical abuse, including false accusations leading to legal harassment.
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, while not categorizing male victims explicitly under domestic violence, records hundreds of husbands killed by wives in recent years (over 785 cases across select states from 2020–2024). Male suicides linked to matrimonial discord far exceed female dowry deaths, often attributed to prolonged false litigation.
The Scenario in Kerala
Kerala, celebrated for its high literacy rates, near gender parity in education, and progressive social indicators, paradoxically reveals deep-seated issues in matrimonial disputes that disproportionately affect men. The state consistently reports one of the highest male suicide rates in India, with family and matrimonial discord emerging as leading causes.
Recent data from the Kerala Crime Records Bureau indicates that approximately 82% of suicide victims are men, with the majority being married. In 2024 alone, out of 10,865 reported suicides, 8,865 were men. Studies and official reports attribute a significant portion of these to family problems, including prolonged legal battles, financial stress, and allegations of harassment in matrimonial cases. Men’s rights activists in Kerala have highlighted how false or exaggerated complaints under Section 498A and the PWDVA contribute to mental agony, social ostracism, and, in extreme cases, suicidal ideation.
The Kerala High Court has addressed these concerns in several pronouncements. In Adwaid v. State of Kerala (September 2025), the Court referenced Supreme Court warnings about the rising trend of false implications under Section 498A, emphasizing the need for caution to prevent misuse while dealing with a quashing petition.
In another notable 2026 judgment, the Kerala High Court quashed Section 498A proceedings after the marriage was annulled, holding that the provision presupposes a valid marital relationship and cannot apply post-annulment. The Court reinforced statutory intent, preventing the law from being stretched to cover non-existent domestic relationships.
Additionally, Kerala courts have repeatedly granted divorces to husbands on grounds of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where wives filed baseless criminal complaints. In multiple appeals, the High Court has dismissed domestic violence complaints against husbands and in-laws after years of litigation, noting vague or omnibus allegations that fail to substantiate cruelty. These cases illustrate the ordeal faced by men—eviction from homes, economic coercion, and lack of institutional recourse—mirroring national patterns but amplified in Kerala’s context of high-stakes matrimonial litigation amid progressive societal norms.
These Kerala-specific insights demonstrate that even in a state with empowered women and strong social welfare systems, the gender-specific nature of laws leaves male victims vulnerable and exacerbates misuse, often with tragic consequences.
Case laws further illustrate men’s vulnerability nationally and regionally:
Courts have recognized mental cruelty by wives as grounds for divorce, in judgments emphasizing unilateral false complaints as cruelty (e.g., persistent Section 498A filings without basis).
In several domestic violence appeals, courts have dismissed complaints against husbands for lack of evidence after years of litigation, highlighting the ordeal faced by men without reciprocal remedies.
Men lack access to residence orders when evicted from matrimonial homes or protection against economic abuse. This leaves male victims without institutional support, forcing reliance on general laws that do not address power imbalances in domestic relationships.
A National Commission for Men
The National Commission for Women (NCW), established under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990, investigates complaints, advises policy, and promotes women’s rights. No equivalent statutory body exists for men.
A private member’s bill, the National Commission for Men Bill, 2025, introduced in the Rajya Sabha in December 2025, seeks to establish such a commission to address false accusations, mental health, family law biases, and male victims’ issues. As of February 2026, the bill remains pending, reflecting legislative inertia. In states like Kerala, where men’s rights groups are active, such a body could provide crucial platforms for redress.
The absence of a men’s commission perpetuates institutional bias: women’s grievances receive dedicated scrutiny and policy intervention, while men’s issues—often dismissed as frivolous—lack similar platforms.
Constitutional Imperative for Gender-Neutral Reforms
Article 14 demands that laws treating similarly situated persons differently must satisfy the test of reasonable classification. When evidence—from national surveys to Kerala-specific suicide data—shows men as victims of analogous domestic violence, the gender-specific classification in PWDVA loses its rational nexus.
The Supreme Court has upheld protective discrimination but emphasized evolving societal realities. With changing dynamics—dual-income households, shifting power equations—the object of protecting the “weaker sex” no longer justifies excluding men.
Proposals for reform, including earlier drafts of gender-neutral domestic violence bills and scholarly advocacy, align with this. Amending PWDVA to define “aggrieved person” neutrally, or enacting a comprehensive Domestic Violence Act applicable to all, would restore equality without diluting protections for women.
Conclusion
Justice demands impartiality, not gender favouritism. The current framework, while well-intentioned, has engendered misuse and left male victims unprotected—evident nationally and acutely in states like Kerala—violating constitutional equality. Judicial safeguards have mitigated some abuses, but they are reactive, not preventive.
The time is ripe for legislative action: amend the PWDVA for gender neutrality, enact reciprocal remedies for men, establish a National Commission for Men, and address regional disparities highlighted by cases and data from progressive states. Only then will the law reflect the constitutional vision of justice for all, irrespective of gender. Failure to act perpetuates injustice, eroding public faith in the legal system.
*The author is an advocate of Kerala High Court