The notion that only women suffer physical or mental cruelty in marital relationships may be contrary to the hard realities of life in many cases, the Delhi High Court recently observed.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that men too are at times victims in marital relationships and are entitled to same safeguards under the law as women.

“The notion that in marital relationships, only women suffer physical or mental cruelty without exception, may be contrary to the hard realities of life in many cases,” the judge said.

The Court made the comment while dealing with the anticipatory bail plea of a woman who allegedly caused burn injuries to her husband by pouring boiling water mixed with chilli powder on him.

The accused had sought a lenient view on the ground that she is a woman. However, the Court termed it an argument based on gender bias.

It stressed that judiciary has to remain vigilant and ensure that decisions are not influenced by such biases.

“Just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law. To suggest otherwise would violate the very basic principles of equality and human dignity,” the Court said. 

The Court further said that creating a special class of leniency for women would erode the foundational principles of justice.

The empowerment of one gender and protection to it cannot come at the cost of fairness towards another, it added.

“In case a woman causes such injuries, a special class cannot be created for her. Crimes involving the infliction of life-threatening bodily injuries must be dealt with firmly, irrespective of whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman since the life and dignity of every individual, regardless of gender, are equally precious.”

Further, the Court highlighted the unique difficulties faced by men, who may be victims of their wives in marital relationships.

In the present case, the husband few days before the incident had filed a police complaint stating that he had married his wife under the threat of registration of a false rape case against him.

It was also stated that he had come to know that his wife had previously married many men and then filed rape cases against them. He further said that his wife also has a child out of a previous marriage.

The wife allegedly poured hot water on his eyes, on his chest and on his neck on January 1 while he was asleep.

She is stated to have then locked the room from outside and fled the spot. She had also left their three month-old daughter in the room itself.

Further, she had also taken her husband’s mobile phone along with her to ensure he is not able to contact anyone.

The Court rejected the woman’s argument that she was harassed by her husband and when he was talking to some other girls, an altercation had taken place.

There is yet no explanation offered on how the victim sustained the injuries and as to why she fled the spot with his phone after locking him inside the room and remained absconding, the Bench remarked.

The Court refused to take a lenient view on the accused-woman, stating that the pain, trauma and damage from such injuries are the same, irrespective of the victim’s gender.

It also remarked that in case the roles were reversed, it would have been argued that no mercy should be shown to him.

“Therefore, it would amount to perversity of justice if, in cases where a woman causes such grievous injuries to a man, she is treated with leniency solely on account of her gender, despite the seriousness of the offence,” the Court said

The Court also rejected the argument that the accused be granted bail since she has a three-month-old child to take care of.

It noted that the accused had left the child with a badly burnt husband and had locked both of them in the room before fleeing from the spot with his phone.

“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the applicant herein has failed to join investigation, the recovery of the phone of the victim is to be effected alongwith the need to confront her with the documents mentioned in the complaint, considering also the nature of injuries and the manner in which the injuries were caused, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” the Court ordered

[Jyoti Alias Kittu Vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi]