The Delhi High Court has upheld that men have an equal right to legal protection against cruelty and violence, just like women.
Justice Swarana Kanta dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a wife who caused burn injuries to her husband by pouring boiling water mixed with chili powder, despite her plea for leniency based on her gender.
The Court underscored that empowering one gender should not come at the expense of fairness to another, asserting that it cannot make gender-based distinctions in cases of physical violence or harm.
It further highlighted that extending special leniency to one gender in instances of life-threatening injuries would compromise the fundamental principles of justice.
“This case highlights a broader societal concern. Men who face violence from their wives often grapple with unique challenges, such as societal doubt and the stigma of being perceived as victims,” the Court noted.
The Court further remarked, “These stereotypes perpetuate the misconception that men cannot be victims of domestic violence. Hence, it is crucial for the judiciary to adopt a gender-neutral perspective in such cases, ensuring fair and equal treatment for both men and women.”
While rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, the Court highlighted the victim husband’s statement, which disclosed that the wife had coerced him into marriage by filing a false rape case.
The Court observed that, despite the wife’s allegations of torture and harassment by her husband and his family, she had not lodged any formal complaint against them.
Denying the wife’s request for leniency, the Court stressed that bodily injuries—regardless of whether they are inflicted on a man or a woman—must not be evaluated differently based on gender.
In response to this argument, the Court stated: “One must consider the scenario if the roles were reversed, and the husband had poured boiling water mixed with chili powder on his wife while she was asleep, locked her in the room, taken her phone, fled the scene, and left their infant child crying beside her. In such a case, there would undoubtedly be no call for leniency toward him. However, courts must remain impartial, free from both hidden and overt biases, even when arguments tainted with such biases are put forward.”
The Court stated that the notion that only women suffer physical or mental cruelty in marital relationships, without exception, may not reflect the harsh realities of many cases.
It emphasized that cases should be judged on their facts, not on stereotypes.
