Delhi HC: The court must adopt gender neutral approach/Men facing cruelty in marriage is also entitled to same legal safeguards as women

 

In this Court‟s opinion, the hallmark of fair and just justice delivery system is to remain gender-neutral while adjudicating cases of such nature as the present one. In case a woman causes such injuries, a special class cannot be created for her. Crimes involving the infliction of life-threatening bodily injuries must be dealt with firmly, irrespective of whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman since the life and dignity of every individual, regardless of gender, are equally precious.

{Para 22}

23. 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.

 24. The empowerment of one gender and protection to it can not 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. To suggest otherwise would violate the very basic principles of equality and human dignity, and this Court cannot differentiate between genders when it comes to acts of physical violence or causing injuries. Creating a special class of leniency for one gender would erode the foundational principles of justice in cases of life threatening bodily injuries.

25. 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.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  BAIL APPLN. 262/2025

JYOTI ALIAS KITTU Vs  THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Date of Decision: 22.01.2025.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Under which circumstances wife is not entitled to anticipatory bail for causing injury to husband?

The other argument that the accused be granted bail since she has a three month old child to take care of, is also found unmerited in this case, since it is apparent from the record, from the complaint andthe statement of the witnesses recorded so far, prima facie, that accused herein had left her three months old daughter crying besides a badly burnt husband and had locked both of them in the room before fleeing from the spot with his phone. The daughter is being taken care of by the victim/husband and his family. {Para 28}

29. The argument regarding there being no motive and false implication of the accused, to entitle her to anticipatory bail, is also unmerited, since the record reveals that four days prior to the incident in question, i.e. on 27.12.2024, the victim husband had lodged a detailed complaint with the police (running into eight pages) against her wife for cheating, extortion and forced marriage. Pertinently, in the said complaint, the victim had mentioned in detail about the conduct of the accused, including her previous relationships with several men, a child born out of a previous marriage which she had not disclosed to the victim herein, the fact that she had filed several cases under Section 376 of IPC against different persons, etc., which were not in his knowledge. He had also mentioned his apprehension that his wife may kill him with the help of her mother and other family members and he had therefore sought protection from the police.

30. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the applicant herein has failed to join investigation, the recovery of the phone of the victim is to be effected alongwith the need to confront her with the documents mentioned in the complaint, considering also the nature of injuries and the manner in which the injuries were caused, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  BAIL APPLN. 262/2025

JYOTI ALIAS KITTU Vs  THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Date of Decision: 22.01.2025.

Print Page

Whether commission of acts of violence while residing separate will amount to domestic violence?

Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act reads as

under:-
"(f) „domestic relationship‟ means a relationship between
two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived
together in a shared household, when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the
nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living
together as a joint family."
A perusal of this provision makes it clear that domestic
relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved
person had lived together with the respondent in a shared household.
The living together can be either soon before filing of petition or 'at
any point of time'.
 The purpose of the Act is to give remedy to the aggrieved
persons against domestic violence. Domestic violence can take place
only when one is living in shared household with the respondents.
The acts of abuses, emotional or economic, physical or sexual,
verbal or nonverbal if committed when one is living in the same
shared household constitute domestic violence. However, such acts
of violence can be committed even otherwise also when one is living
separate. When such acts of violence take place when one is living
separate, these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC
or other penal laws, but, they cannot be covered under Domestic
Violence Act. One has to make a distinction between violence
committed on a person living separate in a separate household and
the violence committed on a person living in the shared household.
Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared

household can constitute domestic violence. The totality of the
circumstances of the case show that the case is not covered within
the meaning of the term 'Domestic Violence' as defined under
Section 3 of the Act 2005.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-26327 of 2014

Om Parkash Syngal and others

versus
Aditi Garg

Date of decision : 01.12.2015
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL 244

Print Page