top of page

Idiocy of the 

Indian Protection of Women from Domestic Violence 

It is foretold! The torrential flow of inexorable destiny!

15. Generalisation of ideas in the Act

Commentary about the general impressions

Look at this illustration

The issues are not standalone problems

The basic mistakes in the Act


Now, let me go into the general impressions of the Act. A few of them are listed below. However, it may be noted that many of the items mentioned are not tangibly present in the exact wordings of the Act. I think some of them are simply derivates of the Act, with what level of legal status, I am not sure.

1. Domestic Violence includes calling the wife abusive name and insults.

It happens in all fights. There is no need to call in the police. She has the right to retort. However, in the Indian vernacular, it shall amount to a total breakdown of relationship. Still family life will endure. For there is no other go in most cases, for both the husband as well as for the wife.

2. Husband has no trust in her.

Well, she has to build up the trust.

3. He is jealous.

It is a human failing. Most people are susceptible to it.

4. He is possessive.

It is a part of love, or can be part of the anxiety to see that he is not deprived of his wife by others.

5. He wants her to move away from her earlier relationships, including friends.

In certain cases, the incessant interference and even calling her on the mobile by her parents and uncles etc. will not be liked by the husband. This is natural if the concept of a family life is clearly understood. For, if the others’ interference is creating problems of adherence in the family unit, it is right that the husband can disallow it.

6. He wants to know where she goes, who she calls and who she spends her time with

Well, there is a new relationship called marriage that has sprung up. Even in a business organization, the boss or the partner would be inquisitive about the movement of the other partner or employees, if they are moving in the company of competing businessmen or organisations. If all this is not the business of the husband, then it is not the business of the wife to have married him in the first place. Marriage means entering into a new partnership. It is not a trifle affair.

However, much depends on the language of communication. In English, a more leeway naturally comes in. In feudal vernaculars, the whereabouts of the wife’s movement can affect the husband’s indicant word level, which is a very crucial thing in Indian social communication.

7. He does not want her to work for others.

Well, working in India literally lends power and leadership to another person, the boss. The husband is naturally deprived of this prop, and the other entity is getting this. This concept and problem is not there in English, but it is very much there in Indian vernaculars.

8. Keeps all money to himself and gives her only what he thinks should be with her.

Well, this man is too insecure. Have to change him. The wife has to bring about this change. Or else desert him. No need to go to the police for that.

9. Shows no love for her.

Well, he has no love for her. If she has love for him, the marriage may still work. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time, before it breaks down. Both persons wait for an ideal time to break off. If the husband does it first, the provision of this Act can be invoked. If the wife does it first, the husband can go around licking his wounds. Yet, actually, it is not a thing for the police to interfere, to enforce love.

10. He wants her to ask his permission for everything.

Well, it might be his own mental disposition for domination. It is not a male character, but the character of certain persons, both male as well as female. Or else, it may be a misunderstanding of what he expects from her. Informing him about what she is going to do is a healthy thing. It need not always be misconstrued as permission. It is all a matter of communication and being honest. Telling lies can gnaw at the basis of a relationship. She can also ask him his whereabouts.

11. He continually uses words of threat towards her family members.

Well, if they are doing something inimical to the stability of his family unit, then he can be excused. For, by the mouthing of such words, his overall anger may alleviate. It depends. But then the issue of a police case based on what he speaks inside his own house is not correct. If he goes into the other people’s house and threatens them, then it naturally becomes a police case, even without the provision of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

12. He does insult her in many ways.

Well, the issue is connected to whether she humiliates him in any manner. Or there are any other provocative actions from his side. If not, then what is required is a marriage counsellor, not a police constable. If things are not going to improve and she can’t live with him, divorce is the next option. But then the inimical interests of others who want to insert a wedge into their family unity should also be investigated. She cant have him and also have a police case on him. One or the other. It is here the real menace of this Act comes in. The invoking of this Act literally means the end of a marriage. Well, then it is just a tool in the hands of one side of the fight, when the relationship is going to end. A tool which is literally beyond judicial tenability.

Commentary about the general impressions: However, the items mentioned above are just the general impressions about the Act. However some of the items have not been specifically mentioned in the Act and are just mere extensions arrived at by other people depending on their own living conditions.

Look at this illustration: When a woman comes to work as a domestic servant, the householder is delighted. She is efficient. Yet, her husband objects to her working thus. Now, it becomes an issue of Domestic Violence as per the interpretations arrived at. The householder would proclaim it loudly that the husband is not allowing his wife to work for him or her. Yet, the husband has his reasons that his wife should not work in such a menial level. For it would affect the total social standing of the family, including the husband, wife and the children. Suppose the wife is coming from a lowly background, she may not understand the implications of what she is doing. The husband’s reasons are on sound ground. But it is a violation of her rights. It may even be considered as a violation of the householder’s right to employ the other man’s wife. Seen from English all these things are quite unintelligent and silly. However, seen from the Indian vernacular languages, the domination of another man’s wife by another person is a tragic affair. The so-called Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has no means to understand this issue.

For in the case mentioned now, the very appointment of the wife as a domestic servant can send the husband into a mental trauma. It is sure the householder (male or female) will be quite nice to the woman, for it is the issue of having successfully persuaded the wife of a dissenting man to join his or her service.

The issues are not standalone problems: Well, most of the things associated with the so-called Domestic Violence are not standalone items. They are connected to the interests of other people, lack of training in quality communication, lack of a secure place to live without intrusion from others, lack of money, interference from family members and also to the fact that at least a limited number of marriages take place between persons who are not fit for each other.

The basic mistakes in the Act: The problem with the Act is that it does not take into consideration the fact that in a certain percentage of cases, the husband can be right and wrongly accused.

Second is that the law does not act impartially. It is totally biased, and written by some persons to avenge some personal failures in their own life.

bottom of page