
What happens when the law becomes a tool for extortion? Why does the law’s empathy often falter when the victim is a man, leaving them to suffer in silence? These questions have been raised after the recent suicides of two men. Puneet Khurana, a well-known Delhi café owner, tragically died by suicide on January 1 after leaving a video message accusing his wife and her parents of severe harassment and cruelty.
Less than a month earlier, Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old deputy general manager, ended his life on December 9, leaving behind a 24-page suicide note and an 81-minute video alleging severe harassment by his estranged wife, her mother and her brother. Subhash detailed his ordeal, accusing them of extortion demands and filing multiple false cases against him, including charges of murder, dowry harassment and unnatural sex.
These shocking incidents raise a difficult but necessary question: Why should a victim of marital cruelty, in these cases, a husband, be legally compelled to financially support the very individual who caused his suffering?
Burden of maintenance: A double punishment
Although, Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allow husbands to claim maintenance and alimony from wives, this can be invoked only during the divorce proceedings. However, wives can claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, of 2005 even without seeking divorce. In fact, only the wives are entitled to claim monetary relief from the husbands for any kind of domestic violence.
This asymmetry is based on the presumption that only husbands are perpetrators of domestic violence, ignoring the possibility of cruelty by wives. Consequently, there is no equivalent legal protection for husbands against domestic violence and to claim maintenance without seeking divorce proceedings. This may be one of the factors for the rate of suicide among Indian men being 2.5 times that among women (study by IIPS, Deonar).
Additionally, the law of the land, as developed by judicial decisions, is that if the wife is not earning or earns less than the husband, she is entitled to maintenance or alimony, even if the divorce is granted by the court due to the wife’s cruelty. The amount must be sufficient to maintain the standard of living she had during the marriage. While this provision aims to provide financial security to women, it often places an undue burden on men, especially in cases where the wife is the perpetrator of cruelty.
Furthermore, the standard of living test, which determines the amount of maintenance, is often flawed. The assumption that a woman's standard of living must be maintained in the same way it was during the marriage fails to take into account situations where the marriage was short-lived or where the woman has not spent enough time in the relationship to have developed a high standard of living. This test also becomes problematic when the wife is the one who initiates the divorce and commits cruelty to procure divorce expeditiously.
Making laws gender-neutral
The time has come for the legislature to rethink the current laws and make them gender-neutral. It is no longer enough to assume that only women are victims in marriages. Just as laws have evolved to protect women from domestic violence, similar provisions must be extended to men who find themselves in abusive situations. It must be recognized that laws were initially framed to protect women as the country transitioned from a patriarchal society. However, these laws are now increasingly being misused. Therefore, it is imperative for the legislature to address this issue to prevent the misuse of such provisions. This will ensure the realization of a society free from the harassment of any gender.
The idea of pre-nuptial agreements, which allow couples to outline the terms of their relationship, should also be explored as a means of offering clarity and fairness in case of a divorce. Furthermore, maintenance laws should be adjusted to account for situations where the wife is financially independent or even earning more than the husband. In such cases, the husband should have the right to claim maintenance if he is the one facing hardship. This would help address the growing trend of women exploiting maintenance laws as a source of income, as seen in some instances where women have used alimony as a means to financially benefit from multiple marriages.
One of the most pressing issues that needs to be addressed is the absence of legal protection for men against domestic violence. Just as women can seek relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, similar provisions should be made available for men. The law should recognise that both men and women are capable of cruelty and abuse, and both should have access to the same level of protection. In cases where a husband has suffered from emotional, financial, or physical abuse, he should be able to seek relief and protection under the law without facing societal stigma. Further, the law should be made gender-neutral in such a way that if the wife is earning more, the husband should get the maintenance.
Similarly, Section 113A (when the wife commits suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband) has to be made gender neutral in view of the exponential rise in suicides by husbands.
Conclusion: A balanced and just legal framework
The current legal system, while designed to protect the vulnerable, often places an unfair burden on one gender. For many men, the very system that is meant to provide relief becomes another tool of abuse, leaving them trapped in a cycle of financial and emotional distress. It is time for the legislature to recognize the flaws in the existing laws and make them truly gender-neutral. The law should not punish the victim, whether male or female, and should ensure that both parties in a marriage are treated fairly and justly.
The tragic deaths of Puneet Khurana and Atul Subhash must serve as a wake-up call for the legal system. The existing laws, while well-intentioned, need to evolve to address the reality that marital cruelty can be perpetrated by either spouse. Until such changes are made, the cycle of injustice and suffering will continue, claiming more victims like them.
(The authors are advocates at the Supreme Court of India. Views are personal.)