The Delhi High Court recently addressed the idea that only women experience cruelty in marital relationships, pointing out that this view might not reflect the realities many people face.

In the said matter, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted that men can also be victims in marriages and deserve the same legal protection as women.

Justice Sharma explained that assuming only women suffer cruelty in marriages does not match the complex realities of life. This statement came during the court’s consideration of an anticipatory bail plea from a woman accused of burning her husband by pouring boiling water mixed with chili powder on him. The woman asked for leniency based on her gender, but the court rejected this as a biased argument.

The court emphasized that justice should not be influenced by gender bias. "Just as women deserve protection from violence, men are also entitled to the same safeguards under the law," the judge said, stressing the importance of equality and human dignity.

The court also made it clear that creating special leniency for women would undermine justice. It pointed out that crimes causing life-threatening injuries should be treated seriously, regardless of the perpetrator's gender, as every person's life and dignity are equally important.

The court also recognized that men who are victims of violence in marriages face unique challenges, such as societal disbelief and stigma, which can make it harder for them to be seen as victims of domestic abuse.

In this case, the husband had previously filed a police complaint, claiming that his wife had forced him to marry her under the threat of a false rape accusation. He also stated that his wife had previously married other men and filed similar accusations against them.

On January 1, the wife allegedly poured hot water on her husband's eyes, chest, and neck while he was asleep. She then locked him in the room, fled the scene, and took his phone to prevent him from contacting anyone.

The court rejected the woman's argument that she was the victim of harassment and had acted out of anger when her husband spoke to other women. The court also pointed out that there was no explanation for the victim’s injuries or why she fled the scene, leaving both the husband and their baby behind.

Refusing to show leniency, the court emphasized that the pain and trauma caused by such injuries are the same, regardless of the victim’s gender. The judge noted that if the situation were reversed, there would be no question of mercy for the man. Therefore, it would be unjust to treat the woman leniently just because of her gender.

The court also rejected the argument that the woman should be granted bail because of her young child, pointing out that she had abandoned the child and left her husband, who was badly injured. Given the seriousness of the crime, the accused's failure to cooperate with the investigation, and her attempt to hinder the investigation by taking the husband's phone, the court decided that bail was not warranted.

The court’s decision reinforces the principle of equal treatment under the law, ensuring that justice is not influenced by gender biases.