Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh: The December 2024 death by suicide of an automotive engineer in Bengaluru—who left behind a 24-page suicide note and a video alleging harassment by his wife and her family—prompted a surge in calls for ‘gender-neutral’ laws.
There were public demonstrations (see here, here and here) where protesting men claimed that there was extensive misuse of gender-specific laws, particularly section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, now section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, besides alimony & maintenance laws. At one rally, section 498 A was labelled a “black” law.
On micro-blogging site X, formerly Twitter, one user claimed that many Indian women oppose gender-neutral laws for fear of being held accountable for “alimony harassment and false cases”. Another user said, "What is maintenance? Money stealing or loot."
Another user said special privileges to women under Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India make men “second-class citizens”. (This Constitutional provision enables the State to make special provisions for women and children. Gender-specific laws on rape, cruelty against women, alimony and payment of maintenance are rooted in this provision of the Constitution, as part of what is called “protective discrimination”. )
Atul Subhash’s death was not the first instance of ‘men’s rights’ activists demanding the abolition of section 498 A of the IPC. Claims about its abuse have come not only from men but also from various arms of the State including the courts (here, here, here and here) and the government (here).
In its recommendations on reforming the criminal justice system, the 2003 report of the Malimath Committee said some provisions of section 498 A were “heartless”, and recommended making the offence bailable and compoundable.
However, the notion that section 498 A is heavily misused lacks evidence, while rising crime rates against women underscore the need for protective laws for women.
Meanwhile, the low participation rate of Indian women in the workforce reflects their inability to financially support themselves, accentuating the importance of alimony laws. Our analysis shows how gender-specific legal provisions help address systemic inequalities and social realities, accounting for the disproportionate burden of violence and discrimination faced by women historically.
The Misuse Discourse On Cruelty Law
Section 498 A of the IPC entailed imprisonment for up to three years for husbands or their relatives convicted of cruelty to a woman, including conduct that may drive the woman to commit suicide, or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman to coerce her to meet any demands.
Introduced as an amendment to the IPC in 1983, this section covers not just dowry but also other acts of cruelty.
The data suggest that the bogey of wide misuse of section 498 A blows out of proportion isolated instances of its misuse.
According to a 2024 UN report on femicides, 60% of murdered women were killed by a partner or family member, making the home the most deadly place for women worldwide.
Up to 87% of married Indian women who are victims of marital abuse do not seek help, according to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) 2019–2021, conducted by the ministry of health and family welfare. It found that 29.3% of married Indian women between the ages of 18 and 49 years had suffered domestic or sexual violence, indicating that the vast majority of women who suffer domestic violence do not file cases under section 498 A.
Surveys have corroborated the fact that the number of cases filed under section 498 A was an undercount, as many more cases frequently go unreported. If anything, section 498 A is less used than abused.
The Crime In India 2022 report by the National Crime Records Bureau which functions under the union ministry of home affairs revealed that 445,256 cases of crime against women were reported in 2022, marking a 4% increase from 2021. Among these, the highest share, at 31.4% of the total cases filed were under the category ‘cruelty by husband or his relatives’, followed by kidnapping (19.2%), assault with intent to outrage a woman’s modesty (18.7%), and rape (7.1%).
NCRB data over a decade shows that, if anything, total incidence of crimes against women grew exponentially from 213,585 cases in 2010 to 327,394 cases in 2015, to 405,861 cases in 2019 and further to 445,256 cases in 2022. This is a 108% increase between 2010 and 2022.
Allegations of extensive misuse of the law and the narrative that women have filed very large numbers of false cases, however, have remained limited to cases registered under section 498 A, which grew at a significantly slower pace compared to the overall rise in crime against women (from 94,041 cases in 2010, to 113,403 cases in 2015, to 125,298 cases in 2019 and 140,019 in 2022, a 48% rise over the same 12-year period).
Misuse of a law is not exclusive to women-specific laws. Yet, reports of false accusations of murder do not elicit calls for the repeal of laws against murder.
In reality, a complex web of patriarchal traditions, societal expectations and personal fears prevent more women from reporting domestic violence. Lawyers and experts who have worked extensively with domestic violence survivors have found (see here, here and here) that women, in fact, delay filing cases under section 498 A, hoping to arrive at a settlement or amicable resolution.
Paternalistic Courts And Stereotypes Of Women
The claim of men’s rights activists that the judicial system is heavily biased against men also does not appear to hold any substantial ground. In fact, in multiple instances, the courts have displayed prejudice against women.
For instance, as Article 14 reported in 2020, in defining ‘cruelty’ in divorce cases—including, for example, wives who don’t wear a mangalsutra or prioritise careers or want to live separately from their in-laws or do not make tea—Indian courts have often fallen back on stereotypical roles of women.
The discriminatory undertones in laws and their interpretation contribute to the often-hostile views that emerge from India’s courts.
Instead of encouraging women to file complaints to claim their right to mental and bodily safety in the marital home, the Supreme Court in May 2024 appeared to advise women to pursue legal action only when all else failed.
"Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a genuine case of cruelty and harassment,” the Supreme Court said, as it dismissed a dowry case filed by a woman and her family.
In November 2023, Article 14 reported that an officer told a domestic-violence survivor, “He will love you some days and hate you on other days, forget everything and make up with your husband”.
When women file lawsuits against abusive husbands, it is often perceived by society as an attack on Indian ‘family values’ and the institution of marriage.
In a 2017 case, Rajesh Sharma & ors Vs State of UP & Anr, the apex court said a premature arrest may ruin any chances of settlement between the couple, as most complaints under 498A of the IPC “are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues”.
The court appeared to suggest that women may be irrational in making a complaint about abuse or dowry demands. “At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized,” the court said.
The Socio-Economic Context Of Alimony Laws
Just as gender-based criminal offences necessitate gender-specific laws, the civil remedies of alimony and maintenance are also linked to a socio-economic context.
The origin of alimony and maintenance laws goes back to the ecclesiastical courts of pre-1857 England. The rationale of such provisions was mainly derived from lack of property rights and working opportunities for women, and were based on traditional norms regarding men’s societal duty to support their wives.
Indian alimony and maintenance laws fall broadly under two ambits: secular and personal laws.
Under the Hindu personal law, maintenance for the wife has been provided for under section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It may come as a surprise to mens’ rights groups that section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is a gender-neutral provision for permanent alimony and maintenance.
Under Muslim law, section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 lays down “reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid” to the former wife by the former husband within the iddat period, the waiting period of three lunar months to be observed by divorced and widowed Muslim women. This term was interpreted by the court to include even the future needs of the former wife beyond the iddat period.
Under the secular provision of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), a former husband can be made liable to pay maintenance to the former wife unable to maintain herself if he has sufficient means to do the same.
The legislatures of the modern world have outgrown traditional roles of men and women and adopted laws based on newer values of equality. Many developed nations have adopted gender-neutral alimony laws.
The Supreme Court of the United States (US) ruled alimony as gender-neutral in 1979. Singer Kelly Clarkson paid her ex-husband $150,000 as temporary monthly spousal support in addition to $45,000 per month in child support. Similarly, provisions on alimony in the English statutes have adopted a gender-neutral language. For example, section 22 of the United Kingdom’s Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, says with regard to maintenance suits that “the court may make an order....requiring either party to the marriage to make to the other such periodical payments for his or her maintenance”. The term “party to marriage” has been consistently used throughout the statute instead of “husband” or “wife”.
Gender Neutral Laws In The Indian Context
Today, women in India have property rights and better working opportunities than in the past, rendering the question of whether India is ready for gender-neutral laws on alimony and maintenance a crucial one. While it is true that socio-economic conditions of women have become relatively better with time, the current position of Indian women still does not justify the abolition of gender-specific laws on alimony and maintenance.
In comparison to developed countries, such as the US & the UK, the involvement of women in the workforce is low in India.
According to the 2023-24 annual report of the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), the labour force participation rate (LFPR) of women was 35.5% in comparison to 57.9% for men in rural areas. The disparity in urban areas is worse at 22.3 % for women and 59% for men.
According to an International Labour Organization database, the LFPR for Indian women was 32.7% in 2023, compared to 56.5% for women in the US and 58.3% in the UK. In general, North America, Europe & Central Asia have narrower gaps between LFPR of men and women.
It is reasonable to conclude that most Indian women do not have enough means to support themselves and that the Indian society has not yet developed enough in this regard to enact gender-neutral legal statutes on alimony and maintenance.
According to the annual PLFS Report 2021-22, the latest available data citing the reasons behind women’s low workforce participation, it was found that almost half of the women who were not part of the labour force cited “child care/ personal commitments in homemaking” as a reason for their non-participation. On the other hand, most men reported “want to continue study” as the reason for not being part of the labour force.
As a woman’s domestic labour remains unpaid during the span of marriage, she is most often completely dependent on her husband for survival, and post-divorce financial independence would require time and effective interventions from the State, society and family. India’s gender-specific alimony provisions favouring women seek to compensate for this unprivileged socio-economic position of women.
Family laws in India remain founded on patriarchal, patrilineal, and patrilocal culture.
One such patriarchal construct is reflected in section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. A legitimate child's natural guardian is the father, whereas an illegitimate child's natural guardian is the mother.
Likewise, the fact that spousal rape—here are three accounts from Article 14—is yet to be criminalised in India reflects the idea that husband possesses absolute right over his wife’s body. The union government has resisted its criminalisation, claiming it could have a “destabilising effect on the institution of marriage”.
The world over, the gradual move towards gender-neutral laws is seen as a step towards more inclusive societies. This is particularly true of gender-neutral rape laws, critical to ensure justice for all victims of sexual violence.
In cases of cruelty against a woman in her marital home, section 498 A seeks to address a historical and systemic pattern of abuse. If made gender-neutral, the goal of the legislation, which is to rectify power disparities, may be undermined.
Calls for gender-neutral laws in a starkly gender-biased society can lead to gross injustice.
While the subject requires responsible discourse, the approach of men’s rights associations has been to spark petty gender wars on social media, helped along by algorithms that favour sensationalism over meaningful dialogue, trapping users in cycles of outrage without challenging systemic injustices.
(Sk Ehtesham Uddin Ahmad is a professor of history at the Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University. Maimuna Siddiqui and Fatima Zainab are 3rd year law students at the same university.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.