<link rel="stylesheet" href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans%3A400italic%2C700italic%2C400%2C700">Domestic violence Archives « Aam JanataSkip to content


There is no doubt every law can be misused, particularly in a state where enforcement is haphazard at best. At the same time, the continued disinformation campaign by the supposed "Men's Rights Activists" (a false term, explained later) that the 498a is mainly a tool to victimize men is false, from all the data I have come across. This post rubbishes some claims I came across today.

Before getting into the data, I first want to clarify that I do not think that men are never oppressed by women. Nor do I believe that all women are innocent. Also anyone dismissing my views for being "feminist" in the interpretation of unfairly prejudiced in favor of women would do well to focus on the content and respond to it, because I have never hesitated to take the side of men I believed to be wrongly accused by feminists. The latest being the Tarun Tejpal episode.

I call the "Men's Rights Activists" BOGUS for several reasons. To begin with, they have little to do with the rights of men and their focus is on men wrongly accused under laws they believe to be biased in favor of women, chief among these being the 498a which provides women valuable protection against domestic abuse. To the best of my knowledge, Men's Rights Activists have largely ignored most other abuse against men, including male on male rape or other sexual abuse, which is an serious area which has voice neither in law nor social activism.

Further, the activism cites a handful of cases and uses them as a premise for claiming that most cases of domestic violence are false, completely ignoring routine news reports of women landing up in hospital or dead - which is kind of tough to fake for framing "innocent men". The "possibility" of misuse is presented as the factual trend and heavily warped interpretations of statistics are used to create bogus victimhood.

Finally, I want to say I do recognize that there are serious problems facing men, but creating prejudices against already vulnerable women does not help them, it only provides sanction for further prejudice. This is also my motive to aggressively debunk the disinformation. I do not believe it helps anyone and I believe it harms women.

Women are "equally guilty" as men of domestic violence

Facts around us dispute this absurd claim. The number of women in hospitals and morgues alone make a mockery of the idea that men are going through the same at the hands of women. Professor Surinder Jaswal of TISS conducted a study of women admitted to rural and urban hospitals in Thane as Medico-legal cases and found that 53% of them had injuries due to domestic violence.

Men's Rights Activists conveniently hide behind the pretense that no records are maintained for male victims of domestic violence, therefore their claims must be accepted as fact. However, male victims of assault landing up in hospitals can be tracked. It is one example of official records that are neutrally maintained that can be accessed. Another would be cases filed against wives and husbands for "provoking suicide", which would give them exact numbers for how many commit suicide because of their wives (another bogus claim, addressed later).

Currently, the data on record does not support this absurd claim, but that doesn't stop them from claiming it anyway.

Men are physically stronger, but mental violence is equal/worse by women

I challenge any reader of this post to do their own research of family discussions. Videotape it, because you will not believe the results you get. Mark number of times for:

  1. How many times did a man interrupt a woman and how many times did a woman interrupt a man.
  2. How many times was a sarcastic or otherwise derogatory comment made by a woman to a man and a man to a woman.
  3. How many times did a man's voice not count toward a group decision and how many times did a woman's voice not count toward a group decision.
  4. Any outright abuse directed at men. Any outright abuse directed at women. (Bad words, swear words, accusations about self-worth like income, character, intelligence, wastefulness, etc)

Then we talk. Mere claims are not enough. Bring data. I have yet to come across a social or family situation where women had the more powerful voice or where women were able to impose their will on unwilling men. So "abuse" becomes rather difficult. I don't say it is impossible. I have not seen evidence in my life of "equal" on the contrary, I have seen evidence that it would be extraordinarily rare.

Conviction rate as "proof" of a wrong law or misuse

Article in IBNLive quotes a survey by some organization called Hridaya-Nest of Family Harmony and says, "In West Bengal the number of cases under the section has grown exponentially at the rate of 11 per cent in the last two years but the conviction rate has dropped to just 4.4 per cent from 6.3 per cent earlier, as per the survey." Waitaminit. This is misleading on several fronts.

Firstly, this is no survey data, it is lifted off the National Crime Records Bureau data for the year 2012. The likely reason it hasn't been identified as such would be curious minds heading over to the conviction rates on theNCRB website and finding out that the conviction rate nationwide (which should have been quoted to challenge a nationwide law) is 15%. From the same table, conviction rate in Uttarakhand is 65%, Uttar Pradesh is 49% and Arunachal Pradesh is 50%. Does the "expert" want to comment on that?

Conviction rate for custodial rape is ZERO percent. Are we to assume that custodial rape does not happen? Conviction rape for Arson is 15.6% Should we assume that people accused of arson are basically framed?

The basic fact of law is that the lack of conviction is not proof of innocence. A conviction may not happen for many reasons ranging from out of court settlements - which are really common, because the relationship is obviously headed for divorce and it is really common to allow the woman a "quick divorce by mutual consent" or fight it out in courts, where she is basically homeless and under dubious social status for as long as it takes, while the husband continues to live in the marital home and control the marital property.

I get a few calls every month about domestic abuse. Some of them complete with assault and terrified kids. That don't even result in complaints.

Exaggerated claims about maintenance

Here is a quote from that bogus organization. "She can ask you for maintenance under ALL these sections and as per recent judgments; you will have to maintain her at the same living standards that she was accustomed to before marriage or after marriage, whichever is higher. If your wife is the greedy type, she may also ask to increase her maintenance amount in case you get a salary hike even after years of separation! People have even been asked to sell their kidneys to pay maintenance amounts or else go to jail."

In India, 3% of the population pays income tax. Proving the husband's income to get a share is near impossible. The maintenance is not a default, and the courts have to grant it. Further, the maintenance is nothing remotely like "same living standards" and is more usually betwen 2% and 10% of the husband's (proved) income. A study of divorced/separated women by the Economic Research Foundation shows that most women go through a drastic drop in lifestyle after divorce or separation. This contradicts your claim that husbands are forced to maintain their wives as per same living standards. About 80% of women don't file for divorce because they have nowhere to go. Vast majority of the remaining are forced to become dependents with parents or other relatives. 60% of divorces are by mutual consent as reported by Vicky Nanjappa a fairly pro MRA journalist. 46% of women awarded maintenance never get it.

Where is this wholesale persecution of men you are talking about?

10 lakh women have been jailed by 498a

As per the latest available statistics, there were less than 8 thousand women in jails nationwide. This number 10 lakh that gets promoted is about all women arrested since 2001. There is no such thing as wholesale jailing. Accused get bail in most cases. The case may drag on, but no such thing as 10 lakh women languishing in jail. It is no specially worse than other laws.

It is easy to trap and destroy men by sending them to jail for years on the accusation of a woman

Men's Rights Activists need to get their propaganda straight. What is it? 498a has a low conviction rate, or everyone accused of 498a gets sentenced on the mere word of the woman? Return when you have decided what it is. As for arrested on accusation, it happens with all kinds of crime from IT Act violations to theft. You'll have to ban the IPC if you want to do this in a fair manner.

There is no proof that men are more violent than women

You gotta be seriously doped for this, but you can check out photo and video footage of mobs, riots, statistics of people arrested for murder, assault, rape, kidnapping, check with bar bouncers how many men and women get thrown out for brawling.... the works. Heck try road rage too while you are at it. What makes you imagine that this gender difference in violence gets reversed once at home?

This post is already too long. Will write another one with more other stuff later.

Basically, there are better ways to help men than harming women. Those who care about the well being of a community will also be found actively helping those in need, not just giving stock examples with little evidence of actual help for people in need. If your "rights" are protected just against a specific target, then your objective is opposing that target, not the rights. The idea that men can rape men and it is not our area of focus, but women must not nag is a bit bizarre to come from "Men's Rights Activists"


Psychological abuse is designed to strip a person of all self esteem. It is mental violence that may or may not be accompanied by physical violence. It erodes self-esteem, isolates its victim and prevents actions to seek help. Psychological domestic abuse usually happens as a constant corrosive factor in a relationship rather than the easier to recognize physical violence, which occurs as distinct episodes with visible damage or actions of harm.

In a patriarchal culture, psychological abuse is rarely recognized as active harm being inflicted, but it is very damaging to the victim. Psychological abuse is almost always a part of domestic abuse, but less recognized and equally true is that where there is psychological abuse at home, it is domestic abuse as well. A person does not have to be hit to be abused.

Domestic Emotional abuse shows no signs of inury unlike physical abuse, but the impact on the victim can be devastating.
Domestic Emotional abuse shows no signs of inury unlike physical abuse, but the impact on the victim can be devastating.


"Do you want some tea?"
"You need to ask?"

***brings tea***
"Is this the time to drink tea?"

***makes tea, does not give***
"You can't even make tea for everyone?"


"Is it Diwali? Can't you switch lights off?"

***reverse isn't true***
"Please remember to switch lights off"
"So I forgot, you can't even do such a small thing yourself if you spot it?"


"I am used to eating staying hungry. At least feed the kid."

"Can't you cook anything better? I'm sick of eating this all the time."

"Why do I have to tell you what to cook? Can't you even manage that much on your own?"

"Cook one day, tell everyone about it for a month."

"House is always untidy. What do you spend your time on?"


"What do you need money for?"

"So what if you spend or work more at home? Do I do these comparisons?"

"Whatever you have is because of me, you ungrateful bitch."


"Anyone else in my place would have kicked you out long ago."

"If it weren't for the child, I'd have kicked you out long ago."


"Where are you going? Or is it too much to ask?"

"I'm not interested in the useless things you do."

"Why are you dressed like this?"

"You can't go now. You have to help me with this."


***taunts in front of other people***

"She's always eating."

"Any time I drink, I have to see her long face."

"Best wishes on your wedding. May your wife turn out to be better than mine."

"You're lucky. My wife is always spending my money and asking more."

"She doesn't understand all this."

"Can't go one day without embarrassing me."


***if you seek help***

"Go... tell the world how you are suffering. It is fashionable to complain."

"What will you do? Everyone will sympathize with you, but agree with me."

"Not even your father will take you back. Your actions are like that."

"Go approach who you want, but don't come back to this house."

"You won't last a day on your own."


More easily recognized forms include rage, blackmail and other intimidation. It is very common to have some "trigger subjects" that result in extreme rage and the victim is blamed for "starting it" knowing the reaction she gets. Such subjects usually are a reasonable expectation that the abuser does not want to agree to as a form of control over the victim. So extreme rages can happen over "I want to do a job" or "You need to contribute to household expenses." or "Going somewhere for a few days" or anything. Really.




Such talk is designed to keep a person defensive and unable to question the treatment they get. It is abuse. Seek help. Find someone to speak with. The reality being painted is one designed to make you see yourself as an inferior, undeserving person getting advantages you don't deserve, when the reality is usually the opposite.

Domestic mental abuse may not leave visible injuries, but it does result in other physical manifestations ranging from stress related ill health, psychological disorders, paranoia, sleeping or eating disorders and can be a risk factor for suicide. Apart from the obvious problem with it. It is unjust and hurtful.

It is likely you will recognize these words as some you hear often. To yourself, to others around you.... or you may recognize this as how you talk.

If you are a recipient of such talk, it is important to know that you are not responsible for the actions or speech of another. You have not caused this person to be nasty. They are nasty because they want to be nasty.

If you speak in such a manner, you are basically an abusive person, who I hope changes or meets an ugly end. Such conversation is often a part of "normal" home for many, who don't realize it is abuse to speak in such a manner. If you wish not to speak in such a manner, it is important to keep an eye on what you say. Counselling for anger management can help dramatically in achieving an ability to express yourself without declaring to the world that the only way you can be right is by being too much of a nuisance to engage with to disagree with your self declared claim.

If you see such talk happening around you, you are in a position where with very little effort, you can disrupt the talk and show solidarity with the victim. Here are some idea on how you can prevent or fight domestic abuse around you.

It is possible for a person to be an abuser as well as abused. It is also possible for men to be abused, and it is a difficult area to understand, because accusations of women torturing men are more commonly used as psychological weapons against women to isolate them from sympathy. A good example is the highly strident "Men's Rights Activists", who are almost always found describing women as oppressors, while rarely seen seeking help for securing justice for any of the abundant men they believe to be "equally wronged by women". On the other hand men who actually suffer end up silent for fear of social shame. A reliable indicator to check for is if the claim of abuse an accusation or a description of suffering. Using accusations of mental violence as further psychological weapon against a victim is common. However, When using such accusations to vilify, the sense of the communication is one of aggressive dominance, dictated interpretations of reality, generalizations and  there is a distinct lack of any sense of helplessness, even when describing a situation where the "victim" is left with no choice. This goes for women who may use accusations against men too, though this is considerably rarer, specially if they are residing in a home owned by those they accuse.

The important thing is to remember that fixing guilt on any party is not useful, particularly when there are mutual accusations and a relationship history. It will also not help the victim for abusers to be able to claim a bias against them. The priority is for the abuse to end and space for talk to be created or distance so that the abuse cannot harm while a more proper resolution can be seeked.

The important thing is that all talk is a choice. A bully chooses to speak in a manner that hurts. Like any other abuse, no one "asks for" or "deserves" mental abuse either. No matter what.

Are there common phrases you hear that are not included in this post? Add them in comments. Let us help people learn to recognize unfair talk.

It was alarming to hear the calls for hanging the rapists in the Delhi Gang Rape, even as it was heartening to hear violence against women take center stage for once. A year later, the alarm remains, while the hope is increasingly jaded.

There is a strange kind of feminism in the air. One that picks specific victims to hurtle into a media spotlight and hunts down those they accuse recklessly and with scant respect for women's rights as a whole. Glaring inconsistencies in our response, in my view do more harm than good. The practice of isolating women for justice is anti-feminist in my view, even if the leading culprits in India happen to be feminists.

The need is for rights to improve for all women, not just one or few we find grabbing our attention. Nor is the problem with women's rights merely sexual. I dare say that in India, domestic violence and economic exploitation are among the key areas of enslavement of women. This narrow vision and hyperbole laden public discourse is doing more harm than good by cherry picking cases with already easy access to media or enough dramatic value, while ignoring the more dreary and difficult to defeat realities.

It hardy takes a brain to say that a gang rape is evil. It does not take too much intelligence to whip up a "campaign" by forcing people to answer a question of which there really is only one answer other than claiming complete inhumanity. And the anger takes on a life of its own.

My vocal objections to media's role in the Tehelka Rape Case was born of alarm that elite feminism (and I'm using the term really loosely) seems to bypass courts of law altogether. While many criticized me for their imagined belief that I was defending Tarun Tejpal, my posts can be refered to even now. My problem was with media abandoning even a pretense of neutrality. Before the Tejpal case got heard by courts, we had Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhary - among those targeted - resigned. We had the victim, her witnesses and several other journalists resigning in protest. We had about 34 staff members fired. And the case had not even been heard in a court of law, let alone judged.

The question no longer remains one of "do you think taking advantage of a girl is right?", it becomes one of "What is a suitable punishment for what degree of crime, and who determines this after determining if the crime happened?".

The case of Khursheed Anwar highlights this question even more. Accused of drugging and brutally raping and sodomizing a woman activist he invited to stay overnight, he became another overnight social media villain. Unable to bear the humiliation (presumably) he committed suicide before his reputation could even grow into full blown villain potential.

As though his suicide somehow was proof of his innocence (or perhaps the scale of social media justice meter showed "overcompensation" forcing the return of some humiliation or something), several people immediately proceeded to accuse Madhu Kishwar of provoking his suicide (she had videotaped the testimony of the rape victim - with disclosure and consent - but not released it). Some outraged people went as far to accuse her of trying to provoke the suicides of two other women whose names had been withheld by revealing their identities, while a few articles went ahead to make allegations forcing her to issue a clarification that while she was approached for help and she recorded the victim's narrative, she did nothing with it, including taking further action or discussing with colleagues, and she named more people who circulated the footage (a copy was provided to victim).

In other news, Nitish Rane has been desperately trying to utilize this high potential formula by taunting Nikhil Wagle with allegations of his misconduct with another woman, an ex-employee at IBN Lokmat. Nikhil Wagle (and the rest of the world) have ignored these allegations - for now. I suspect the lack of media interest may also be related with the main ingredient of these TRP festivals missing - a helpless woman supported by more women talking about the helplessness of this woman or women at large and so on. Perhaps he will get it right. Perhaps we will find someone else to lynch.

The main thing here is that in all these three incidents, the victim herself has not filed a police complaint, and the method of seeking justice appears to be disclosure of ordeal in social media, making it viral, counting on insecure authorities to blink first in the face of all the noise and take notice, while the publicity machine delivers its own brutal "tabadtob insaaf". At best, it is forcing the government to take sides in a case that will be tried in a court of law through sheer media manipulation, thus rendering the person to lose the media war completely delegitimized with the government itself opposing them.

This is worrisome. Not just because of the possibility that guilt or innocence cannot be decided by who can raise the loudest mob, but also because of its impact on the rights of women outside the spotlight.

More importantly it is worrisome because the courts seem to have been bypassed almost entirely as a method of justice and have been converted into a kind of additional, official punishment, that could result in another bonus punishment in jail. The primary punishment happens in destroyed careers the minute you convince media that justice must be in your favor.

And this, as we see is a game of perceptions. For example, our diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who spoke up for women's rights, but went through considerable effort to pay her babysitter a fraction of the legal minimum wage that she undertook in writing to pay. Media currently sees her as the victim, and the maid who got paid at best a third of a due, and possibly even less than that, if her working hours were more is actually seen as the person harming this innocent diplomat who has won the perception war.

If social media manipulations to influence opinions for political reasons are big business now, I guarantee that within a year or two, high profile lawyers will be engaging social media teams to get their cases tried outside courts.

Considering today's Supreme Court verdict on Section 377 that criminalizes "carnal acts against the order of nature", there is a lot of confusion on what exactly is allowed and what is not. Here is a quick primer:

  • You can still marry kids, as long as they are not of the same sex.
  • Marital rape continues to be legal. It is a natural kind of sex for the kind of men our lawmakers make laws for, apparently.
  • You can continue to rape your child bride as long as she is not under 15 years of age (or you aren't a woman).
  • You have to ignore personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution whenever you feel the urge to have sex with someone who has a penis (if you have one) or who has a vagina (if you have one) and control your urge, or give in and report to the nearest police station for your crime.
  • Law must discriminate on the basis of gender when it comes to sex. The constitution does not matter.
  • Sex between a man and woman for procreation is natural.
  • If you are a woman and infertile, post-menopausal or on contraceptives, the sex will be illegal.
  • If you are a man, sex using condoms is not natural, or you'd have been born with one. Also avoid sex except for procreation anyway, which means you will likely get two months of sex in your whole life.
  • Oral sex is illegal. So is anal sex and a lot of other acts. As a golden rule, if it isn't a part A into slot B kind of sex that will make little people like you, forget it.
  • The jury is out on kissing.
  • If you happen to be LGBT, please close the curtains while having sex. Ideally, close your eyes too, so there are no witnesses.
  • Renting a home to LGBT people or leaving them alone in your drawing room while you make tea could be aiding and abetting a crime, please consult a lawyer.
  • You may root for bringing down the age of marriage, putting restrictions on women's clothing, jobs, use of mobiles, marriages or whatever, your organization may have been implicated in terrorism, or you may have threatened to arm people against the government, but you should be rightfully proud for saving the country from a calamities like consensual gay sex.
  • Finally, the British are the true culture of India. Kamasutra and Khajuraho are secular scams. The British themselves slipped off the moral path and gave in to gay sex some 46 years ago, but do not lose your moral compass. Keep it pointed firmly to an era where the sex of everyone else was the business of people with the largest mob.

And if you are foolishly angry, watch out, because while nothing happens to Parliamentarians who do unconstitutional things (think UID, ICMS, IT Rules, RTE, restrictions on drinking age for adults under 25....) and while the courts supposedly empowered to strike down unconstitutional laws don't actually strike them down and kick the can into someone else's backyard, the fact is that this mockery of the constitution is legal.

However, saying something like "Fuck you Supreme Court" over this would be a contempt of court. If you put your belief that the judge trampled on the constitution onto paper as an op-ed, you'd be an intellectual. On a blog, you'd be a rebel blogger, just don't draw it as an image, because you'll go to jail for insulting a National symbol. Get it? Just like it is illegal to burn an Indian flag, but ok to faunt it on your desk next to your paper weight and silver pen while running a scam.

Additional note to MLAs: Kindly do not watch gay porn in the Assembly, and if you must, please make sure there are no media cameras around to catch it.

This post will most certainly be updated. I ain't done ranting yet by a long shot.

If you can't make out that this is sarcastic satire, you got bigger problems than the Supreme Court ruling.


As the voices protesting violence against women become louder, another kind of voice is rising. Save the Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) is an organization that does NOT aim to save Indian families, but to save families accused of domestic violence from going to jail.

On the surface, it seems what it claims. However, scratching the surface, it isn't that either. The SIFF agenda does not aim to fight abuse of men in the meaning of "men's rights" like "women's rights". For example, they do not work for male rape victims though they do claim to carry out desensitization against "patriarchy". They fight "false rape cases" and "false dowry cases" and overall anti-feminism.

Taking apart a typical propaganda article to show the fallacies and how facts morph into fiction to cater to agendas.

The article in question is "NCRB stats show more married men committing suicide" by Vicky Nanjappa.

What the title states is fact. However, does it amount to the claims made in its content? Let's take a look.

All quotes from the article.

A report by the National Crime Record Bureau shows that in the year 2010, 168 men ended their lives everyday.Vicky Nanjappa reports.

If one were to go by the report released by the National Crime Records Bureau, it seems that in the year 2010, men in India were the weaker sex. In other words, more husbands committed suicide than wives.

Before we get into the suicide statistics, I want to point out the first mindfake. Number of suicides higher means is not the "weaker sex". While I believe that there is no point labeling stronger or weaker, the idea that an average person of one sex who can normally easily overpower an average person of the opposite sex is specifically labelled weaker does not hold merit, particularly in the face of rising crimes when exactly that happens. One wonders what that specific ploy achieves. The most that could be said if we MUST label like strong and weak is that men are emotionally weaker or less resilient.

This fits in with the cultural stereotype. Men raised in patriarchy with a sense of entitlement have relatively fewer coping skills under stress or deprivation or denial than women conditioned to deal with it. At the same time, they are under stress to constantly prove themselves. This also reflects in the overall overwhelming number of men getting violent - apart from suicides and such.

Regardless of all that, note that physically women by and large are weaker and this cannot be dismissed so casually. The physical harm by women to men remains negligible and is overwhelmingly the other way around.

This is particularly important since these men use these numbers to imply that cases filed under 498A (domestic abuse) are mostly false as well as claim a reverse norm of women exploiting men. So the statistics must show possibility of domestic abuse or abnormally high suicides among married men alone. If a married woman committed suicide when India lost a cricket match, you wouldn't accept it as suicide due to domestic abuse, right?

Statistics reveal that last year 61,453 married men committed suicide in India while the number of married women who committed suicide was almost half, 31,754. The statistics was only slightly better for 2009. That year, NCRB statistics show, 58,192 husbands killed themselves as compared to 31,300 wives.

The NCRB is a wing of the ministry of home affairs. Going by its report for the last two years, the suicide rate among men has gone up by 5.6 per cent while that among women has risen by 1.4 per cent.

An analysis of the suicide data shows that every 8.5 minutes a man commits suicide somewhere in India. In other words, in 2010, 168 men killed themselves every day.

There is a nice graph provided.

Suicide Ratio

So why are people committing suicide? This table is sortable by clicking on the header to enable easy comparisons (unlike govt data).

[table id=7 /]

Or in other words:

Suicide data for India by causes

It does not tell us much except family problems being a big reason for suicide. What kind of family problem is not specified here. Whether the causes are marital is difficult to ascertain like this. However what is clear is that on the whole, for most reasons, men are committing suicide more and this is not exclusive to family problems even in the highly unlikely case that if they were solely marital. We leave this be, for below (I just wanted to use this very useful and pretty table :p).

The article goes on with some more statistics, but the next concern it raises is:

However, it is in the 30-44 age group where the statistics turns grim for men: 30,444 victims against 14,402 women.

To begin with, we are now not talking about married, unmarried widowed, divorced, etc, but an age group. Fair enough to assume that most are married, and so on, but out of these 30,444 men who committed suicide between the ages 30-44, a mind boggling 16,053 were self employed (and over a fourth of them farmers). This is 49.2% of all male suicides, 52.7% of his target group, and he thinks this data is relevant for domestic abuse? More likely looks like floundering family owned businesses (which could also explain the "family problems")

In contrast, 51.5 of all suicidal deaths are housewives, though the numbers for men may be more on the whole. Except for things like dowry or pregnancy, everything has more men committing suicide, including things like illness, insanity or AIDs - which can't even be attributed to any other kind of discrimination for it to be called a "men's rights" issue.

Then we have:

Virag Dhulia, a men's activist from Bengaluru who runs several 'save the male' campaigns, explains that despite the efforts of groups like his, the message is falling on deaf ears, and blames what he calls "unfair laws targetting men" for this statistic.

I understand that Virag Dhulia has a personal issue with the Dowry Act. Unless I am mistaken, he's the guy who sued his wife for giving Dowry, when he got booked under the Dowry Prevention Act. That doesn't sound very helpless to me, but I can understand that he feels strongly about it.

However, the statistics don't agree that men are doing particularly worse from either domestic abuse or divorce settlements. The table below is Statistics of suicides by marital status (You're welcome). Looking at it, it is fairly clear that suicides are higher among separated men than divorced men. Generally these settlements are a part of the divorce. If I am to use Virag's logic, I think this is fairly concrete proof that guilty minds at rest, less men commit suicide after giving away their properties to the evil women? :p

[table id=8 /]

Additionally, in cities - the supposed target group where these supposed malpractices happen of framing the husband, etc The rate of suicide is less among married men than among single men as well as less among divorced men than separated men. If men are dying from spousal abuse, then the numbers ought to be more for married men than single or separated. Also, if men were being driven to suicide by divorce settlements, those numbers ought to be bigger.

In other words, this is gender propaganda invented to incite hate about women by projecting men as large scale victims of them and fueled by pure spite. I would have said lies, but it is actually possible that they liked the numbers so didn't look too closely at them. Giving them the benefit of the doubt.

There is more about how the laws are unfair, but it moves into the legal aspect and away from suicides, so separate article for them.