0

India’s Approach Towards Campus Crime: A Legal Perspective

Articles , ,

Introduction

A safe campus environment is where students, faculty, and staff are free to conduct their daily affairs, both inside and outside the classroom, without fear of physical, emotional, or psychological harm. However, recent attacks on the college campus by targeting students and teachers have not only violated their rights by putting them at risk of injury or death but also affected their education by hindering them from attending colleges and causing property damage. news nowadays have reported violence in colleges and universities that range from mass shootings to incidents of rape, assault, burglary, etc., parents and education professionals are becoming more concerned about the atmosphere in which students are bound to spend several years of their college life.

Types of Campus Crime

Violence occurring at campuses can be broadly categorized as : –

  • Rape- It is usually defined as intercourse forced on a person against his/her will and punishable by law. This category has a variety of perpetrators including strangers, acquaintances, dating partners, etc..
  • Non-sexual physical attacks- include assault, fighting, mugging, and other forms of physical violence.
  • Bias-related violence- is another type of violence that refers to harmful acts which target specific individuals or groups of individuals based on their cultural, ethnic or religious characteristics.
  • Casual violence- also known as wilding is a term that is prevalent in the media. It refers to violence that does not have a purpose or a specific reason for choosing a particular individual as the potential victim
  • Suicide and homicide- are extreme forms of campus violence against self or others which may be perpetrated by a variety of factors at a campus setting or non-campus setting.

University Grants Commission’s step to curb campus crime

In a bid to ensure on and off campus safety of students, University Grants Commission (UGC) has instructed Higher Education Institutions in India to set up police stations on campus to keep away anti-social elements. UGC Secretary has made it clear that ensuring students’ safety from attacks, threats and accidents should be prime concern of educational administrators. ‘Safe, secure and cohesive learning climate is an ineluctable precondition to quality education and research in Higher Education Institutions[1]’. Among the safety guidelines the UGC has formulated a suggestion to set up police stations on campus to allay security concerns besides commissioning of a student body of Community Service Officers. ‘With students studying late night, these officers can provide short distance escort service to the nearest taxi or bus stand besides helping with night patrol’[2].

UGC in order to stop ragging in campuses has requested the institutions to make compulsory for each student and every parent to submit an undertaking every academic year. The commission has framed ‘regulations on curbing the menace of ragging in higher educational institutions, 2009 to prohibit and prevent ragging in campus. Action will be taken if any institution fails to implement these steps or violates the rules. The commission has also established a nationwide tollfree anti-ragging helpline(1800-180-5522) which can be accessed by students in distress due to ragging. The universities are asked to set up anti-ragging cell, committee and squad in the campus[3].

Indian courts on campus crime

Sarjad K P v. state of Kerala

In a college in kazhikodi 3 degree students armed with dangerous weapons trespassed into the classroom of diploma students of the same college and assaulted the victims with iron rods causing severe injuries. The accused were registered for offences under section 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 & 427 read with 149 of IPC. The kerala high court held that rowdism on campus cannot be tolerated. ‘Merely because they are students aged about 18 & 19 years, they cannot be granted anticipatory bail and if granted it will be an incentive to rowdy elements in the college to resort to violence, which has to be curbed with a heavy hand’[4].

P Senthil and others v. the principal, SIVET

When the demands of the students regarding class timing were not met, the students began to boycott classes. On the request of college authorities, police came and resorted to lathi charge on students. Later the students were asked to pay fine and attend classes while the 7 petitioners were suspended. The Court directing the college to re-admit students, expressed that there is degradation of decipline among students in college and when institutions are trying to curb evils like ragging, eve-teasing, boycotting, etc. The institutions should ensure special committee is constituted to address the grievance of students[5].

Raghul K A v. Chief Secretary

Kerala High Court held that, if there is any threat to the law and order situation, it is open for the college to have it reported to the police; upon which appropriate remedial measures shall be taken by the police to abate such situation[6].

Conclusion

A decrease in campus crime will affect the campus population positively in numerous ways. Not only will a decrease in violence exposure but reduce psychological stresses and traumas placed upon college students. It will also allow students and faculty to focus more on academics and education.

It is evident from this article that Indian courts have dealt with campus crime cases with utmost sensitivity considering extent of the case and the future of the students. The UGC as per the order of the Supreme court has formulated the rules against campus crime. The UGC guidelines have dominantly contributed in preventing crime such as ragging, bullying, fighting, burglary, rape, thefts, etc. in campuses. The decrease in campus violence will likely result in a decrease of local crimes and the tendency to commit crimes and thus, improves the well-being of society as a whole.   

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri

[1] UGC guidelines on safety od students on and off campuses of HEIs

[2] UGC guidelines

[3] UGC regulation on curbing the menace of ragging in higher educational institutions, 2009

[4] Sarjad K P v. State of Kerala ; 22/02/2017 ; justice K Abraham Mathew ; B.A.no. 1066/2017, crime no. 1187/2016 ; kerala high court

[5] madras high court ; W.P 25952/2001, W.P.M.P. 38408/2001

[6] WP 10163/2017 ; justice P R Ramachandra & Shircy v

0

Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) grants State the power to drop charges against an Individual: Karnataka’s Perspective

Articles

Introduction

The primary object of criminal justice system is to ensure that the trial must be fair. Generally, once the cognizance has been taken, the case proceeds and after full trial, either results in conviction or acquittal. Before that, discharge of the accused can also be made in some circumstances as per Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure in summons case.

There are circumstances where criminal cases can be disposed of without trial:

  • When criminal proceedings is barred by limitation under section 468 of Cr.P.C.
  • When offences are Compounded as per Section 320
  • When the charge is groundless the accused is Discharged under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
  • When Conditional Pardon is given to an accomplice under Section 306 and 307 ofPC
  • For absence or non-appearance of complainant at the discretion of the magistrate under Section 249 of Cr.PC
  • When case is withdrawn by complainant (Section 257 of PC)
  • Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence as per Section 300 of Cr.PC
  • When court stops the proceedings in certain cases empowered under Section 258 of Cr.PC
  • When withdrawn from prosecution a per Section 321 Cr.PC

How far Section 321 of CrPC is utilized by the State of Karnataka?

According to this section only the public prosecutor or the assistant public prosecutor who is in charge of a particular case can apply for withdrawal from prosecution in the respective case. Upon such withdrawal, if it is made before a charge has been framed then the accused shall be discharged of such offence and if it is made after a charge has been framed or when under this Code no charge is required he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence. Also, a public prosecutor cannot apply for withdrawal from prosecution in case of private complainant.

Section 321 provides no particular grounds on which withdrawal from prosecution can be filed by the Public Prosecutor, but it has been established as an essential inherent condition by the Supreme Court that withdrawal should be in the interest of administration of justice. It is the responsibility of the respective court, in which the withdrawal application has been filed, to scrutinize the reasons behind the withdrawal and check that withdrawal is not sought on reasons extraneous or against the interest of justice. Furthermore, it is the duty of the court to see that the Public prosecutor actually applies his or her free mind and not just act as mere mechanical agent of the State government.[1]

The Supreme Court has barred states from dropping cases against MLAs and MPs without the respective high court’s clearance since August, 2021. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice SR Krishna Kumar issued the order. ‘The statistical information furnished by the Registrar (Review & Statistics) does not appear to be proper and sufficient, particularly relating to withdrawal of cases by the state government exercising power under Section 321 of CrPC or with respect to the cases where the application under Section 321 of CrPC is pending,’ the bench observed. The Karnataka High Court also directed the Registrar General to furnish fresh information regarding the cases in which the state government has filed application under Section 321 of CrPC that are still pending disposal before the Special Courts on or after 16.09.2020.

The Karnataka government submitted that only four cases against MLAs and MPs have been withdrawn in the state since September 2020, the Karnataka High Court sought details of all applications filed for similar relief. A case against Mysuru Madikeri BJP MP Prathap Simha, booked for causing voluntary hurt and obstructing a public servant, was withdrawn on October 19, 2020. Also, the court was informed that three cases for wrongful restraint and assault of a public servant against Honnali BJP legislator MP Renukacharya were withdrawn on November 19, 2020.

In August 2021, the Karnataka High Court had asked the state government to provide details of cases dropped against elected representatives after September 16, 2020. The court was dealing with a petition against an order of the state government to withdraw 62 cases against 312 individuals. Subsequently, as many as 21 cases were dropped by courts in Karnataka between October 2020 and December 2020, benefiting 312 individuals.

The BJP led Karnataka government had recommended the withdrawal of 46 cases of violence, mostly against BJP leaders, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders and several right- wing organisations, accused of being directly involved in violence that erupted around the birth anniversary celebrations of the Mysore ruler Tipu Sultan. These cases were registered across Karnataka between 2014 and 2018 when Congress government was in power.

The recommendation was opposed by both the police and the state law department. Persons were accused of direct involvement in violence, fanning communal tension in the state, making inflammatory speeches and derogatory comments on Tipu Sultan and ridiculing the then state chief minister Siddaramaiah in their speeches. Most of these cases were non- bailable and attract punishment over seven years.

The BJP government had recommended withdrawal of these cases under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. The recommendations, were opposed by Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG & IGP), Director-Department of prosecution and Government litigation and Law department. While the DG & IGP has opined that  recommendation are ‘routine procedures’ these cases “cannot be withdrawn”, both the department of prosecution and law have observed that these are “not a fit case to withdraw”.

In a private complaint Shankar Sheth and Shivalingayya Hiremth from dharwad alleged that siddharamaiah had made malicious statements that ‘CMs who are lingayats spoilt the state due to their corrupt nature’, while there is not an iota of truth in his statement as no court has convicted  or held any lingayat CM of Karnataka guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A special court for cases filed against incumbent and former MPs and MLAs has dismissed a defamation suit filed against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over his comments on Lingayat chief ministers. Court held that the statement was clearly not made to entire community or targetting members of the lingayat community, but only in respect of the chief minister was in position as on date of statement. Judge J Preeth said ‘complainants have not suffered any legal injury nor has their reputation been lowered by the comments. Since they are not the aggrieved persons, taking cognizance of the offence and proceeding will amount to abuse of legal process.’

Conclusion

The present Karnataka government led by the INC would utilize its power as per section 321 of CrPC. As any other government would do to withdraw cases or drop charges against individuals. The present Chief Minister’s case mentioned in this article would have been withdrawn under Section 321 if it was not a private complaint, therefore it had to be decided by the court. The previous government has utilized its power to withdraw 62 cases within two months benefitting around 312 individuals. It is assumed that the present government would withdraw more cases under Section 321, benefiting more individuals. Disposal of a case without trial not only saves time but also in certain cases helps in restoring harmony that cannot be achieved by conducting a full fledge trial. While in most of the cases this power is used blatantly the government in their favour, it is ever ambiguous as to the fairness of withdrawal of cases by the government.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri

[1] Sheonandan Paswan v State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288.

0

India’s stand upon the issue of Domestic violence against minor

Articles , , , ,

Introduction  

Domestic violence or abuse against children is developing at a disturbing rate across the globe. This phenomenon poses risk against the child’s mind and conscience vulnerable to them being easily influenced by any situation that arises. These include problems associated with depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, isolation, shame, fear, guilt, and low self-esteem. The crime of domestic violence or maltreatment against kids is normally carried out either by the parents or an individual from the family. So, there is need for the government to make laws to save children from violence and evil, by which every citizen will be bound by the duty to abide by those laws strictly to frame the future of the country.  

Domestic violence against minor in India  

The constitution of India safeguards several rights of the children regarding their education, freedom of speech, religious practices, dignity of life, etc. But no exclusive legislation has been enacted in the nation that safeguards the children of this country from domestic violence against them. 

Domestic violence against minor is of two types:  

  • Corporal Punishment- the parents or guardians of the child use physical forces to compel their child to act according to their will. Slapping, thrashing, and belting are few examples. This includes compelling a child to ingest food or forcing them into certain activity. 
  • Psychological violence- the parents or guardians of the child are involved in the usage of force which makes an impact on the mind or conscience of the child. This involves building a sense of fear or intimidation within the child not by the use of physical force but with verbal communication. Aggression, threats, guilt, manipulating the emotions of the child, withdrawal of love towards the child etc are few examples1.  

Issue 

Whether current provisions are sufficient to protect minors from domestic violence ? 

Review of literature: Legal action on domestic violence against minor in India 

Indian law has provisions relating to violence against minor in various acts, but no particular law is explicitly enacted with the object of securing children against domestic violence.  

  • Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 

This act is intended to provide protection to children whose rights and privileges are infringed. It treats a minor child, who is subject to domestic violence by his or her parent or any other person, as a child in need of care and protection. 

The law defines a child exposed to domestic violence as one who resides with a person (whether a guardian of the child or not) and such person— 

(a) Has injured, exploited, abused or neglected the child or has violated any other law for the time being in force meant for the protection of child; or 

(b) Has threatened to kill, injure, exploit or abuse the child and there is a reasonable likelihood of the threat being carried out; or 

(c) has killed, abused, neglected or exploited some other child or children and there is a reasonable likelihood of the child in question being killed, abused, exploited or neglected by that person;”2 

If any parent has treated their child with physical violence for the purpose of disciplining or reforming, it is called corporal punishment and the act mentions “corporal punishment as the subjecting of a child by any person to physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming the child”. 

The JJ act also provides that the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, have primary responsibility to care, nurture and protection of the child.  

Section 75 of the act provides for the punishment for cruelty or domestic violence by parent. It states ‘Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both.”3 Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, and also if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organisation, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees.  

In case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not willful4 and the penal provisions of this section will not apply in such cases. 

In case the offence is committed on a child who is disabled and so is certified by a medical practitioner, then such person will be liable to twice the penalty provided for such offence. Where the same offence is made punishable under any other act then, the guilty offender will be punished under the law which provides for punishment which is greater in degree. 

  • Protection of children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012: 

This act deals with sexual offences to which children are subjected to. If a child undergoes sexual assault or harassment by his/her parent then the offence will be punishable under this act with A minimum of 20 years of imprisonment that may be extended up to life imprisonment and fine5.  

  • The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 

This act along with providing punishment for the offence of domestic violence with women, also covers the domestic violence by parent upon a girl child. 

Domestic violence has been defined as any act, omission or commission or conduct of a person which includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; by way of harassing, harming, threatening, injuring or endangering the health, life, safety or well-being of the aggrieved person which maybe either mental or physical.  

A woman or a girl child may on application obtain a relief by way of protection order, an order for monetary relief, a custody order, a residence order, a compensation order or more than one such order under this Act. 

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 

Section 373 of IPC states that whoever is involved in the activity of buying, hiring or has any sort of possession of any minor girl for the purpose of prostitution. Such person shall be liable for a fine and imprisonment which can extend upto a period of ten years. 

section 376AB states that any person, who is guilty of committing rape against a female under the age of twelve years of age, will be liable for a fine and life imprisonment. while the maximum punishment in such cases can result in death penalty for the culprit. 

Supreme court in the case of Parents Forum for Meaningful Education v Union of India, concluded that corporal punishment violated the Constitutional right to life. ‘It seems to us that imposition of corporal punishment on the child is not in consonance with his right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.’6 

The delhi high court on its own motion v. state held that the stress of disclosing and receiving potentially negative responses from caregivers may lead some children to recant in an attempt to alleviate the stress. ‘Where children are concerned, the disclosure normally would tend to be a process, rather than a single incident or episode. It would take multiple interviews for an investigator or an interviewer to even establish trust in the mind of the child.’7 

Analysis 

Whether current provisions are sufficient to protect minors from domestic violence ? 

Even though the present provisions have helped in securing the rights of minors against domestic violence to an extent, they are sufficient to condemn the evil. There is a necessity for stringent, stable and specific law to deal with the ill treatment of children.  

Article 21 of the constitution of India provides for right to life with dignity and liberty. But it does not specify anything regarding protection of rights of minors from domestic violence.   

Though the juvenile justice act provides punishment for cruelty against children, its main object and aim is protection of child or minor offenders in the juvenile justice board. The POCSO act punishes person only for sexual abuse against minor and the domestice violence against women act punishes offender for domestic violence against a girl child only. 

Hence there is a need for the enactment of an exclusive Act for the purpose of protecting minors from domestic abuse. The act must deal with all forms of domestic violence against children keeping in mind the larger impact or effect of such violence on their personality.   

 

Conclusion 

The issue of Domestic violence and child abuse has suppressed many other issues prevailing in society. This issue becomes extremely disturbing in the country like India where the legislation has not enacted any Act to explicitly address the issue of domestic violence against children. Thus, the children of the country suffer from such maltreatment as there are no stringent laws which can protect them from the perpetrators of such ill activities. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri 

 

References: 

  • Domestic violence against child – a severe crime ; law answer online 
  • World health organization ; who.int   
  • Juvenile justice (care and protection of child) Act, 2015 
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 
  • POSCO Act, 2012 
  • Protection women from domestic violence Act, 2005 
  • Violence against children in India ; vikaspedia.in 
0

Right to be Forgotten: An Indian Perspective

Articles ,

Introduction  

Everyone would face insults and humiliations in life, But nobody wants to remember those. We all try to forget it and motivate ourselves to move forward, while the world never forgets it irrespective of our growth and achievement. Right to be Forgotten means the right to get one’s information removed from internet or any public platforms. This right was first established by European Union in 2014 and enforced in 2018 through the General Data Protection Regulation which provides the right to individuals to delete or erase their personal information. Till date there is no law in India to deal with the right to be forgotten specifically. 

Right to be Forgotten in India  

An attempt was made in India to bring the ‘right to be forgotten’. Ravi shankar prasad, ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, introduced The Personal Data Protection Bill to the Lok Sabha on 11th december 2019. The purpose of the Personal Data Protection Bill is to protect an individual’s privacy relating to their personal data. Under the Personal Data Protection Bill, Chapter 5 provides about Right of Data Principal and clause 20 mentions the Right to be Forgotten;  

Clause 20 (l) states that: “Data principal (the person to whom the data is related) shall have the right to restrict or prevent the continuing disclosure of his personal data by data fiduciary”. 
The users can delink, delete, or correct an individual’s personal information under this right but it is yet to be passed in the parliament. 

The right to be forgotten was first raised in India in the case of Dharamraj Bhanushankar Dave v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2015) before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner was accused of criminal conspiracy, murder, and kidnapping. After he was acquitted by the Court, he requested that the respondent must be barred from publishing the non-reportable judgement on the internet, as it could be damaging to the petitioner’s personal and professional life- leading to defamation. However, the court did not recognize the existence of the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in India.  

Supreme court in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union of India, held Right to Privacy as a fundamental right as it will be included in the Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The aim of Article 21 is that No person shall be deprived on his life or personal liberty expect according to a procedure established by law. Court observed that: “right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and to be able to control his/her own life would also encompass his right to control his existence on the Internet.” 

In the case of Jorawar Singh Mundy vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 3918/ 2020), Single Judge bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that, on the one hand, there is petitioners’ right to privacy and on the other hand, the public’s right to information & the preservation of transparency in judicial records. The court prioritizing the petitioner’s right to privacy, ordered the respondents to delete access to the judgement from their websites.  

In Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. M/S Quintillion Business Media Pvt. Ltd. And others, High Court of Delhi recognized the Right to be Forgotten and the right to be left alone as the integral part of an individual’s existence.  

There are certain challenges associated with the implementation of Right to be Forgotten. It would be a disadvantage for the journalists in providing information and news. This right clearly benefits the individual claiming it, while on the other side it hinders the right of freedom of expression of others who have expressed their opinion through various modes of publication. Thus, Right to be forgotten is a complex right. It has to decide between a person’s Privacy and others freedom of speech and expression. 

Conclusion  

The right to be forgotten is a subset of the right to privacy, which is a basic right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, whether the right to be forgotten is a basic right is ambiguous. The “right to be forgotten” being widely significant in present days is a developing right in India. Each one make mistakes remarking their character and everyone deserve the right to be forgotten of that remark once they are exonerated.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri 

 

References: 

  • https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7112-right-to-be-forgotten-in-india.html 
  • https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/myblogpost/is-the-right-to-be-forgotten-a-fundamental-right-52529/ 
  • 2015 SCC OnLine Guj 2019, 
  • https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf  
0

Unveiling the Unspoken Suffering: Mental Cruelty from male perspective.

Articles

Introduction

Mental cruelty is a pervasive issue which goes beyond gender boundaries affecting both men and women in various aspects of lives. This article aims to unveil the cover on the subject of mental cruelty or agony experienced by men in our society. We are living in the society which becomes very stereotypes which leads to a lack of recognition and support, it is very essential to acknowledge and understand that anybody can be a victims of mental cruelty in any relationship, the workplace, and other areas of life apart from gender orientation. This is the fate of the men in our present society in which it is presumed that a man can’t be a victim of domestic violence, society has pre decided this women can’t do such things to the men.

What is Mental Cruelty?

Mental cruelty, as defined in legal contexts, refers to emotional and psychological abuse or harm to an individual. These abuses typically characterized by particular behavior inflicted by partner or anyone to the victim which causes emotional breakdown, anxiety, depression and even long term psychological trauma. While it may not involve any physical harm and its very tough to recognize and understand the pain and suffering of victim because no one can see it through bare eyes, but mental cruelty can be equal damaging and traumatic even more painful than physical damage.

Forms of Mental Cruelty

Emotional manipulation: Abusers may manipulates their victims and tell repeatedly that your idea of thinking is not right and you should change your perspective of thinking and create the self-doubt in the victim minds.

Verbal abuse: constant abuse and criticism of victims work and activities can damage one’s moral and self-esteem and emotional well-being.

Isolation: Abusers may restrains their victims from family, friends and well-wishers and cut-off their support for victim due to which victims started feeling lonely and vulnerable.

Control: Controlling behavior of abuser towards victim, such as monitoring every act of victim like talking, meeting of the victim can create oppressive environment, and checking day to day activities and try to totally control the victim will create environment of jail inside home.

Challenges faced by men

Those men who experience mental cruelty often faces so many challenges in our society in seeking legal help and legal resources.

Stigma: we live in the society which can’t recognize men as a victim of mental abuse or as a victim of domestic violence they presumed that women can’t abuse a men. For this it’s very difficult to a men to come forward and seek help and speak up about his agony and mental torture.

Lack of awareness: Many men may not recognize mental abuse as a form of abuse.

Legal Implications 

 

To understand and recognize mental agony and torture as a form of abuse is very important within the ambit of legal system, as it helps and allows victims to seek protection against such type of mental abuse and serve justice. Mental cruelty on men within the ambit of Indian legal system and it’s very important to understand how Indian justice system deals with this problem.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Under Section 13(1)(ia) of this Act, mental cruelty is a valid ground for divorce. Men can file for divorce who is facing mental abuse by his spouse, it’s comes under the purview of the code.

Indian Penal Code: Section 498A can also be invoked by men who faces the cruelty from their wives or relatives.

Judicial Precedents: Indian courts have recognized so many cases related to mental cruelty faced by men. These includes denial of conjugal rights, false accusation, humiliation and mental trauma.

Maintenance Laws: Men facing mental trauma during or after separation can also can seek maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Case: Shikhar Dhawan v. Aesha Dhawan,

In this case Shikhar Dhawn a renowned cricketer of India got married on dated 30.10.2012 at New Delhi. And have separated on 03.08.2020, whereafter got entangled im litigation both in India and Australia. In the proceeding in the court orders to the cricketer AU$150,000 to the respondent herein as part property payment, and orders for the petitioner/husbnd to pay AU$5,000 per month to the wife and meet the outgoing and mortgages expenses on Beaconsfield property, by way of child support and spousal maintenance. Petitioner was also to pay his son’s school fee and associated fee. While a family court granted divorce to cricketer on the ground of mental cruelty by his estranged wife.

Conclusion

The social stigma and lack of awareness towards abuse to men in our society remain significant barrier to stop mental abuse of men by his partner or spouse. It’s very essential to promote awareness towards this and help out male victim to cope up and take the legal remedy. Indian law recognize mental abuse or mental trauma as a legal ground for divorce and takes legal action against the abusers.

References:

  • Hindu Laws, containing, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) as amended by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019) (w.e.f. 31-10-2019), UNIVERSAL BARE ACT.
  • HINDU LAW (CODIFIED AND UNCODIFIED),

INCLUDING PERSONAL LAWS (Amendment) Act, 2019, (Act No. 6 of 2019)

JUSTICE R.K. AGARWAL.

  • OEDER OF THE PATIALA HOUSE COURT, (NEW DELHI DISTRICT)“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best family law firm, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm. Best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

     

Written by: Aamir Hussain.

–

1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 79