Pursuing the agenda of Women Empowerment and Protection, the overzealous Government has trampled upon the fundamental rights of the males. It is an acknowledged fact that domestic violence is a reality and the husbands and their families perpetrate violence, but more than often husbands are at the receiving end pestered and brutalized by unruly termagants and their parents. Only a cynic would object to the well-meaning ongoing efforts for the upliftment and empowerment of women, but the way men and their rights have been set aside with a morbid concentration on women and their exaggerated rights, proves that the nation lacks gender-neutral perspective that militates against the right to equality before the law.

Hitherto, the shrewd politicians divided people on the basis of caste, creed and religion, but now they have added another dimension to their evil political philosophy by bringing about a social strife between the two sexes and have thus enlarged manifold their area of political manipulations.

Since the Domestic Violence Act 2005 etc. has remained by and large unread it is worthwhile to provide a brief. The DVA is elitist and undemocratic for it protects only the rights and interests of the urban, upper and middle class women who are educated, employed, fairly well off economically, have immense societal support, but there is no mention of the poor women, who are exposed to the worst kind of domestic violence directly emanating from poverty-number of children, lack of food, husbands' unemployment, their drunkenness and drug abuse, their desertion of the family and many a time suicide contribute to the horrifying domestic violence. The DVA is therefore not only undemocratic but anti-poor as well.

The provisions of the DVA believe that the husband is a malcontent in the life of his wife with an unchangeable premise that wife is the "aggrieved" and husband is the "respondent": it presumes that husband is always in the wrong and his wife, the victim of his machinations. The DVA states in the most unambiguous terms that the "respondent shall not be allowed to plead any counter justification for the alleged act of domestic violence", meaning thereby that he must suffer in silence.

It is common knowledge that marriage bestows anonymous benefits upon the woman that she hardly enjoyed at her parental home. Whether she marries ill or well she can hardly miss some benefit. Now, the DVA 2005 has further enlarged her freedom and independence -the husband cannot physically harm her; he cannot verbally humiliate or insult her; he cannot enter his wife's workplace and the school of his children; he cannot communicate with his wife in any form," including personal, oral, written or electronic and telephone". Further, he cannot prevent her from leaving the home neither can he object or restrain her from meeting any particular person.

So far sex is concerned the husband cannot have it without his wife's consent and if he imposes himself upon her without her will and permission, he would attract the penal laws pertaining to rape. In this matter the Supreme Court has opined differently that refusal of sex to the husband is a fit reason for divorce. If the husband and wife are left to themselves, reconciliation wont take too long in a large number of cases, but the DVA allows even strangers, leave alone members of the family, relatives, friends, neighbours to interfere with the life of the estranged woman. She is confused by the cacophony of advisory voices and loses her cool. The DVA exempts all her well -wishers from "criminal proceedings" even if the complaint against the husband turns out to be untrue or false. The worst immoral provision of the DVA 2005 is one that legitimizes the "living relationship" which the framers of the DVA call "living relationship in the nature of marriage". By recognizing such a concept the DVA has opened the floodgates of immorality. Besides, the DVA does not give much thought to the plight of children whom they do not consider more than the by-product of marriage.

In short, the DVA-2005 in its enthusiastic thoughtlessness has throttled all avenues of reconciliation, has weakened the foundations of the institution of marriage, and vitiated conjugal life by developing a false sense of ego and a fictional helplessness among women. When it comes to man-woman relationship let us listen to the traditional but sane voice of John Milton, the English poet and moralist. Milton says that man represents reason and woman passion. As long as reason dominates passion, there is cosmos, but the moment passion dominates reason, chaos ensues. Let us view marital life from this viewpoint for marriage is not a bed of roses but a domestic battlefield. Unless husband and wife bring immense goodwill and sacrifice to bear upon their marital fortunes, their situation is desperate. The DVA need to be replaced by some more benign, sensible, gender-neutral legislation that may ensure women their rightful, honorable place at home and abroad, at the same time not forgetting the rights of men.

Zamir Uddin  

More News at :

http://www.savefamily.org/