Just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law. Yes, this is what Delhi High Court has ruled in its latest order dated January 22, 2025.
While rejecting the anticipatory bail to a wife who was charged for domestic violence against her husband, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also firmly rejected the grounds for bail, where the accused had begged for leniency basis her gender.
This case is about a wife seeking anticipatory bail after allegedly causing burn injuries, by pouring boiling water mixed with chilli powder on her husband.
Case:
Suraj and Jyoti got married on February 14, 2024 and they were living in a rented accommodation in Delhi.
On January 1, 2025, at around 3am, Vishal Singh, who is the landlord for the couple, made an emergency call to the police after he had heard his tenant Suraj shouting for help. While the victim’s face, chest and neck were all burnt, his wife Jyoti was not present at home at that point in time. The landlord also witnessed the couple’s three-month old minor child crying in the room.
What Exactly Happened?
The police investigation revealed that the accused wife had poured boiling water mixed with red chilli powder on the victim husband. Suraj, in his statement, informed police that Jyoti had attacked him while he was sleeping.
Thereafter, she had locked the room from outside to ensure that he will not receive any medical aid and had fled from the spot. She had also left their three-month old daughter in the room.
Not just locking him up after causing injuries, but Jyoti also took away Suraj’s mobile phone along with her to ensure that he was not able to contact anyone.
Trigger For Domestic Violence Against Husband
Suraj further informed the police that he had discovered documentary proof against his wife Jyoti, how she had been making several false rape complaints against multiple persons. When he had confronted her with the same, she had threatened him of dire consequences, before the incident in question.
Jyoti was extremely infuriated when Suraj informed her that he had lodged a complaint against her with the police.
She then threatened him stating ‘main tujhe dekh lungi’ (I will show you) and after Suraj went off to sleep at 10pm, she attacked him within a few hours while he was fast asleep.
Accordingly, an FIR was registered against the wife for commission of offences punishable under Sections 110/351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Submission by Husband
According to the husband, his wife was upset with him since he had lodged a complaint against her false cases, four days prior to the incident. In that complaint which was dated December 27, 2024, Suraj shared that one day when he returned from work, he had found that his mother-in-law had brought one girl child, aged about two years.
The mother-in-law then told him that the girl child was the daughter of his wife Jyoti from her previous husband. Suraj was shocked to learn about this since Jyoti had concealed from him the details of her previous marriage and child from that marriage.
The victim husband then informed the Court that he had also come across certain documents and photographs which pointed that his wife had been in a relationship with at least 9-10 other persons, she was married three or four times earlier, and had also filed cases under Section 376 of IPC against some of them.
Lastly, the husband stated that it is when he confronted his wife with these facts, that she threatened to kill him.
Submission by Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP)
The learned APP for the State argued that the injuries which have been sustained by the victim as documented in the MLC (medico-legal case), pointed out that the applicant intended to kill the victim. The learned APP for the State also shared that the investigating Officer (I.O.) had confirmed two separate FIRs under Section 376 of IPC filed by the wife against two separate persons.
Defense by Wife
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argued that the wife had been falsely implicated in the present case and she herself is a victim of domestic violence since marriage at the hands of her husband.
The wife in her defence stated that on the night of December 31, 2024, her husband was talking to some other girls which led to a quarrel between her and the victim.
The learned counsel for the wife, however, was unable to address the Court regarding the injuries sustained by the victim and the conduct of the applicant, who is evading arrest. He categorically stated that he does not know as to how the victim had sustained injuries.
Since an FIR was lodged against the wife, she approached Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
Delhi High Court
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court analysed all aspects of the case.
The High Court initially observed that the MLC revealed that the victim had indeed suffered injuries on his eyes, nose, and particularly shoulder, neck, arms and chest.
During the course of arguments, the High Court also noted the details of two rape FIRs registered at different police stations in Delhi, on the basis of which the husband had filed his initial complaint. The husband also put forward documents and photographs of accused wife’s previous marriage which according to him, were never disclosed to him.
Justice Sharma was amazed to note that despite the severity of this offence, the wife had advanced an argument before this Court that, since she is a woman and wife of the victim, who was being tortured by him, she should be treated with leniency. On the other hand, the High Court observed that the accused wife had no explanation against the evidences and arguments made by the husband.
Calling for Gender Neutrality in Domestic Violence Cases, Justice Sharma added:
…The facts and circumstances of the present case, brings forth, gender biases, whether hidden, conscious, or unconscious, which are an undeniable reality and not a mere fiction of the mind. Such biases – rooted in societal perceptions, cultural conditioning, or individual assumptions – often find their way into arguments advanced before the Courts, where leniency is sought solely on the basis of the accused’s gender. However, it is the duty of the judiciary to remain vigilant and ensure that decisions are not influenced by such biases where law or judicial precedents specifically do not so provide.
The pain, trauma, and damage resulting from such injuries are the same, irrespective of the victim’s gender. Therefore, it would amount to perversity of justice if, in cases where a woman causes such grievous injuries to a man, she is treated with leniency solely on account of her gender, despite the seriousness of the offence.
The High Court also stated, that in case, genders were reversed here, the husband would have been shown no leniency whatsoever.
Justice Sharma went on to add:
Moreover, the notion that in marital relationships, only women suffer physical or mental cruelty without exception, may be contrary to the hard realities of life in many cases. Courts cannot adjudicate the cases before them, on the basis of stereotypes.
The empowerment of one gender and protection to it cannot come at the cost of fairness towards another. Just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law.
The Delhi High Court in this order also elaborated on the challenges faced by married men within the confines of their matrimonial homes. It quoted:
This case also highlights a broader societal challenge. Men who are victims of violence at the hands of their wives often face unique difficulties, including societal disbelief and the stigma associated with being perceived as a victim. Such stereotypes perpetuate the erroneous belief that men cannot suffer violence in domestic relationships. Thus, the Courts must recognize the need for a gender-neutral approach to such cases, by ensuring that men and women are treated alike.
Dismissing the wife’s plea, the Delhi High Court rejected her anticipatory bail and instructed her to join the investigation.
VOICE FOR MEN INDIA TAKE:
- According to Section 437 IPC (now Section 480 BNSS) a person who is under the age of sixteen, or who is a woman, or who is sick or infirm can be granted bail even in case of non-bailable offences
- Thus, this is a brilliant order from Delhi High Court, where Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, has detailed out biases not just against the men, but also the mindset and approach that Judges need to take in all such cases irrespective of the gender of the accused
- Currently, India does not legally recognise Domestic Violence against men and thus, most often whenever a husband approaches police to file an FIR against his wife and in-laws, he is returned stating, “yeh ghar ka mamla hai…” (this is your domestic problem)
- Fortunately in this case, the husband who was injured could get an MLC done and secure evidences of the attack
- In most cases, where husbands face minor scuffles or verbal humiliation and abuse, it becomes impossible to prove any allegation against the wife, and the only option that men have in such situations, is to file a civil case for divorce
- We would also go to the extent to state that filing an FIR against the wife is itself very subjective and dependent on the police officer attending to your case
- Unlike where cases have to be mandatorily registered if a wife complaints (with or without a medical report), it is a huge struggle for married men to seek their first steps to find their honour, which is registration of a police complaint against their own wives
- Having said the above, the current Delhi High Court order gives ample hope for many men who have given up on the words Justice and Equity
DO WATCH:
Allegations Of Adultery Against Wife Must Be Decided Before Awarding Maintenance: Allahabad HC
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW:
#WATCH | Delhi High Court Calls For Gender Neutrality In Domestic Violence Cases
— Voice For Men India (@voiceformenind) January 25, 2025
▪️Woman forces man to marry her by threats of false cases
▪️Within few months, husband learns his wife had 9-10 relationships, was married at least 3-4 times earlier, where she filed rape cases on… pic.twitter.com/zvBghk3i1A
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)
Follow Us
