Absence of Domestic Violence Laws for Men in India – A Critical Analysis

Abstract 

Domestic violence jurisprudence in India has historically been structured around the Protection  of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), a statute enacted to provide extensive  protection of women rights against violence in the domestic sphere. While the legislative intent  remains unquestionable, judicial literature over the last two decades has revealed a more complex  social reality: men can also be victims of domestic violence, and exclusion of men from protection  against violence under the domestic violence protection laws may, undermine the constitutional  guarantees of equality and access to justice. Recent judicial pronouncements indicate an emerging  shift towards a need for gender-neutral, and evidence-based approach for adjudicating domestic  violence cases. This article critically examines the statutory framework, constitutional  interpretation, misuse of jurisprudence under Section 498A IPC, 18601, and compares international  approach on domestic violence. It argues for calibrated reforms that preserve women’s protection while ensuring fairness and legal recognition for male victims of domestic abuse. 

Introduction 

In Jyoti alias Kittu v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, the Court, while denying anticipatory bail to a  woman accused of assaulting her husband by pouring boiling water mixed with red chilli powder  on his face, chest and neck while he was asleep, emphasised that criminal law must operate  “without gendered assumptions” and that men are equally entitled to protection from cruelty within  domestic relationships. The Court’s remarks underscore a growing judicial acknowledgement that  domestic violence is not a phenomenon limited to female victimhood, and that stereotypes  discounting the vulnerability of men conflict with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.  

Traditionally, domestic violence in India has been conceptualised as a gender-specific social evil,  with women positioned almost exclusively as victims and men as the perpetrators.  

This understanding found statutory expression in the Protection of Women from Domestic  Violence Act, 2005, a landmark legislation enacted to provide civil remedies to women facing  abuse within domestic relationships. While the Act has played a crucial role in addressing systemic  violence against women, its gender-exclusive framework has simultaneously generated  constitutional, doctrinal, and practical concerns, particularly in cases where men allege domestic  abuse. 

Judicial developments over the past decade have begun questioning the rigidity of this gendered  framework. The Supreme Court’s decision in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas  Harsora3 dismantled statutory classifications that were found to be manifestly arbitrary,  reaffirming that remedial legislation must conform to constitutional principles of equality.  Subsequent high court decisions, coupled with growing judicial concerns over the misuse of  matrimonial and domestic violence laws, have further complicated the legal landscape. These  developments highlight the pressing need to reassess whether domestic violence laws in India  adequately balance victim protection with procedural fairness. 

Against this backdrop, the present article undertakes a critical analysis of domestic violence laws  as they relate to men in India. It examines the statutory framework of the DV Act, 2005 evolving  constitutional interpretation, recent case laws recognising male victims, concerns surrounding  misuse of Section 498A IPC, 1860 and compares international approaches on domestic violence  legislation. This article argues that while gender-sensitive protection remains essential, an  evidence-based and constitutionally aligned framework, recognizing domestic violence as a harm based rather than gender-based phenomenon, is necessary to ensure justice for all victims within  the domestic sphere. 

Statutory Framework of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 

The DV Act was enacted to fulfil India’s obligations under international conventions, such as the  Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and to  address the inadequacy of existing criminal law remedies.  

Section 3 defines “domestic violence” expansively, encompassing physical, sexual, verbal,  emotional, and economic abuses. Sections 18–22 provide civil relief, including protection orders,  residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders, and compensation. 

However, this statute is explicitly gender-specific. Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” as  any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship and alleges domestic violence.  Originally, Section 2(q) defines “respondent” as an adult male. These provisions exclude male  victims from the remedial framework, compelling them to seek redress solely under general  criminal law. This exclusion has been challenged as inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21 of the  Constitution of India. 

Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial Expansion 

Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora is a watershed  moment in domestic violence jurisprudence. The Court struck down the words “adult male” from  Section 2(q), holding that the classification was manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14.  Justice R. F. Nariman held that the object of the Act was to prevent domestic violence in all  domestic relationships, and restricting respondents based on gender frustrated this purpose. 

While this decision did not directly address male complainants, its constitutional reasoning,  particularly the emphasis on substantive equality and arbitrariness, has been relied upon by high  courts to justify a more inclusive interpretation of the Act.

High Court Decisions Recognising Male Victims 

Post-Harsora decision, several high courts explicitly acknowledged that men may be victims of  domestic violence and, in appropriate cases, can invoke remedies under the DV Act, 2005 or seek  analogous protection. The Karnataka High Court, in P. Babu Venkatesh v. Rani4, held that the  Act cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats its remedial object by excluding genuine victims solely on the basis of gender. 

The Madras High Court has, on multiple occasions, also cautioned against the mechanical  assumption that men are invariably perpetrators in domestic disputes. In K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita5, the Court observed that matrimonial litigation has increasingly revealed instances where  allegations of cruelty and domestic abuse are used as strategic tools rather than genuine claims of  victimisation. While the case primarily concerned matrimonial cruelty, the Court’s observations  have been cited in subsequent proceedings involving domestic violence allegations against men,  reinforcing the need for judicial caution and fact-sensitive inquiry. 

Furthermore, the Delhi High Court, even prior to Jyoti alias Kittu v. State (NCT of Delhi),  recognized the necessity of gender-neutral application of criminal law in domestic contexts. In  cases involving serious allegations of assault by wives or female relatives, the Court has  consistently held that criminal law does not recognize gender-based immunity when evidence  discloses the commission of an offence. The Delhi High Court decision crystallizes this approach  by expressly rejecting gender as a mitigating factor in cases of domestic violence causing grievous  harm. 

Collectively, these high court decisions reflect a gradual but discernible shift in the judicial attitude  from a purely gendered understanding of domestic violence to a harm-based and evidence-driven  framework. While courts have been careful not to dilute the protective purpose of the DV Act, 2005 they have simultaneously emphasised that constitutional equality does not permit denying legal recognition to male victims. This evolving jurisprudence underscores the need for legislative and procedural reforms that align domestic violence law with contemporary social realities while  preserving its core protective function. 

The Delhi High Court’s Approach 

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Jyoti alias Kittu v. State (NCT of Delhi) exemplifies  contemporary judicial sensitivity to male victims. While deciding on application for anticipatory  bail, the Court noted that the allegations involved grievous physical harm and could not be  trivialised. The Court expressly observed that extending leniency merely because the accused was  a woman would perpetuate stereotypes and undermine equality before the law. 

This approach aligns with earlier Supreme Court dicta cautioning against the mechanical  application of gender presumptions in criminal law and reinforces the principle that domestic  violence adjudication must be evidence driven. 

Misuse of Section 498A IPC 

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalises cruelty by a husband or relatives,  has been a critical tool for protecting women from matrimonial abuse. However, concerns  regarding its misuse have repeatedly been raised before constitutional courts. In Sushil Kumar  Sharma v. Union of India6, the Supreme Court acknowledged that while Section 498A serves a  legitimate purpose, its misuse can result in legal terrorism. 

In Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh7, the Court attempted to introduce procedural  safeguards to prevent arbitrary arrests, noting that false implication of husbands and their families  had become a concern. Although certain directions were later modified, judicial recognition of  misuse remains significant. For male victims, false or exaggerated complaints under Section 498A  often coexist with domestic violence allegations, creating asymmetrical legal pressure and  highlighting the need for balanced safeguards. 

Criminal Law Remedies and Procedural Challenges 

Male victims of domestic violence primarily rely on gender-neutral IPC, 1860 provisions, such as  Sections 323, 324, 325, and 506.8 Although theoretically adequate, practical challenges persist, police reluctance to register complaints by men, societal stigma, and lack of institutional support  lead to significant underreporting. 

Courts have increasingly emphasized that procedural safeguards must be implemented symmetrically. Frivolous or malicious complaints, irrespective of gender, have been dismissed  with costs, reinforcing that remedial statutes cannot be used as tools of oppression. 

Comparative International Perspective 

A comparative analysis reveals that several jurisdictions have adopted gender-neutral domestic  violence frameworks. In the United Kingdom, The Domestic Abuse Act, 2021, defines domestic  abuse in gender-neutral terms and explicitly recognises male victims. Similarly, Canada’s Criminal  Code and provincial family violence statutes adopt a conduct-based approach, which focuses on  harm rather than gender. 

Australia’s Family Law Act and state-level domestic violence legislation also recognise domestic  violence as gender-neutral, supported by institutional mechanisms such as specialised courts and  victim services accessible to all genders. These models demonstrate that gender-neutral legal  frameworks can coexist with targeted protections for vulnerable groups. 

India’s continued reliance on gender-specific statutory language stands in contrast to these  jurisdictions. While social realities differ, comparative experience suggests that gender neutrality  in definition need not dilute protection for women, provided that adequate safeguards for women  remain firmly in place. 

Recommendations for Reforming Domestic Violence Laws in India

1. Legislative Clarification towards Gender-Neutral Recognition 

The Parliament should consider statutory clarification or amendments to address the interpretive  ambiguity surrounding male victims of domestic violence. While wholesale repeal or replacement  of the DV Act is neither feasible nor desirable, targeted amendments, particularly to Section 2(a)  defining “aggrieved person”, could expressly acknowledge that domestic violence remedies are  available to any person subjected to abuse within a domestic relationship. Such clarification would  not undermine the Act’s protective intent, but would instead align it with constitutional equality  and contemporary judicial interpretation. 

Alternatively, the legislature could introduce a parallel, gender-neutral domestic violence statute that operates alongside the DV Act, 2005 ensuring that protection for women remains intact while  extending legal recognition to other victims. This dual framework has been adopted in several  jurisdictions without diluting gender-sensitive protections. 

2. Procedural Safeguards against Misuse without Curtailing Access 

Concerns regarding misuse, particularly under Section 498A IPC, 1860 and DV Act, 2005 proceedings, must be addressed through procedural safeguards rather than substantive dilution of  rights. Magistrates should be mandated to conduct an early prima facie scrutiny of domestic  violence applications to ascertain the presence of credible allegations. Frivolous or manifestly  malicious complaints should attract proportionate cost orders to deter abuse of process. 

Simultaneously, safeguards must not evolve into gatekeeping mechanisms that deter genuine  victims. Judicial training should emphasise that scrutiny is a filtering tool, not a presumption  against complainants. This balance is essential to preserve the remedial character of domestic  violence law. 

3. Uniform Guidelines for Police and Magistracy 

The absence of uniform procedural standards has resulted in inconsistent treatment of male  complainants. The Ministry of Home Affairs, in consultation with the judiciary, should issue 

standard operating procedures mandating gender-neutral registration of complaints involving  domestic violence. Police officers must be trained to recognise domestic abuse as a conduct-based  offence, not a gendered presumption. 

Similarly, magistrates handling domestic violence matters should receive specialised training in  constitutional equality, misuse of jurisprudence, and trauma-informed adjudication. Dedicated  domestic violence courts or designated magistrates can significantly improve the consistency and  sensitivity of decision-making. 

4. Integrated Support Services for All Victims 

Legal recognition alone is insufficient without institutional support. Counselling services, mental  health support, legal aid, and temporary shelter facilities should be made available to all victims  of domestic violence, regardless of gender. While women-specific shelters remain necessary  owing to structural vulnerabilities, parallel support mechanisms for male victims must be  developed through public-private partnerships and legal service authorities. 

5. Data Collection  

One of the most significant gaps in domestic violence policymaking is the absence of reliable  gender-disaggregated data on male victimhood. Government agencies should be mandated to  collect and publish anonymised statistics on domestic violence complaints, including the  complainants and respondents’ gender, case outcomes, and proceedings duration. 

6. Comparative Learning and International Best Practices 

India should draw from comparative jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and  Australia, where domestic violence laws are gender-neutral in definition but gender sensitive in  implementation. These jurisdictions demonstrate that recognising male victims does not weaken  protection for women but enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness of domestic violence regimes.  Incorporating such best practices can help India modernise its domestic violence framework while  remaining responsive to its unique social contexts.

7. Judicial Sensitization to Stereotypes and Bias 

Judicial reasoning must consciously avoid reinforcing stereotypes that equate victimhood with  femininity. Continuous judicial education programs should address implicit bias and reinforce the  constitutional commitment to equality and dignity. 

The objective of these recommendations is not to dilute women-centric protections but to  strengthen domestic violence jurisprudence through constitutional inclusivity. A legal  framework that acknowledges all victims, deters misuse, and ensures procedural fairness will  ultimately enhance the credibility, effectiveness, and moral authority of domestic violence laws in  India. 

Conclusion 

The domestic violence law in India was created to respond to a serious and long-standing social  problem: the widespread abuse of women within domestic spaces. The Protection of Women from  Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has played a crucial role in providing women with legal protection,  civil remedies, and institutional support. Its importance in advancing gender justice cannot be  ignored. However, years of judicial experience have shown that domestic violence is not a problem  faced by women alone. Men, though fewer in number and often reluctant to report abuse, can also  be victims of physical, emotional, and economic violence in domestic relationships. 

Recent judicial decisions clearly reflect this changing understanding. The Delhi High Court’s  judgment in Jyoti alias Kittu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 is an important example. By refusing  to grant anticipatory bail to a woman accused of seriously injuring her husband and by stating that  men are equally entitled to protection from domestic violence, the Court sent a strong message:  the law must respond to violence based on facts and harm, not gender stereotypes. This approach  is consistent with constitutional principles of equality and personal liberty. 

Simultaneously, courts have repeatedly expressed concerns about the misuse of matrimonial and  domestic violence laws, particularly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While such  laws are necessary to protect women from cruelty, their misuse has caused serious harm to innocent  individuals and weakened public trust in the justice system. For men, this creates a difficult situation. They may face false allegations while having little legal recognition when they  themselves are victims of abuse. This imbalance highlights the need for reforms that protect genuine victims while preventing the abuse of legal processes. 

The solution does not lie in weakening laws meant to protect women. Instead, reform should focus  on making domestic violence laws more balanced, fair, and evidence-based. Legislative  clarification is needed to acknowledge that domestic violence is defined by abusive conduct and not by the gender of the victim. Courts and police authorities must be trained to handle complaints  in a gender-neutral manner, ensuring that male victims are heard without prejudice and that  frivolous cases are filtered at an early stage. 

India can also learn from international practice. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada,  and Australia have adopted gender-neutral domestic violence laws while continuing to provide  strong protection for women. These systems show that recognising male victims does not reduce  protection for women; rather, it strengthens the law’s credibility and effectiveness. 

In conclusion, domestic violence law in India must evolve to reflect social realities and  constitutional values. Protecting women from violence must remain a priority, but justice cannot  be selective. A reformed legal framework, supported by clear legislation, sensitive adjudication,  procedural safeguards, and institutional support, can ensure that all victims of domestic violence,  regardless of gender, receive protection and dignity. Such reform will not dilute gender justice;  instead, it will reinforce the core principle that violence within home is unacceptable in any form  and against any individual.

Bibliography  

Statutes and Legislative Materials 

1. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 
4. Constitution of India, Article. 14, 15 & 21. 
5. Domestic Abuse Act, 2021 (UK). 

Judicial Decisions  

1. Jyoti alias Kittu v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appl. No. 262/2025 (Del. H.C. 2025). 2. Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 S.C.C. 165 (India). 3. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281.
2. Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 10 SCC 472
3. P. Babu Venkatesh v. Rani, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1772 (MAD.). 
4. K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita, (2014) 16 SCC 34 

Online Legal Databases  

1. SCC Online Database. 
2. Manupatra Legal Research Platform. 
3. Indian Kanoon 

1 Section 85 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 

2 Bail Appl. No. 262/2025 (Del. H.C. 2025).

3(2016) 10 S.C.C. 165 (India).

4 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1772 (MAD.). 

5(2014) 16 SCC 34

6(2005) 6 SCC 281. 

7(2018) 10 SCC 472

8Indian Penal Code, 1860, §§ 323, 324, 325, 506 (corresponding to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, §§ 115(2), 118,  117 & 351).