Do Men Face Prejudice under the Indian Legal System?
Men Face Prejudice: Unveiling Gender Bias in the Indian Legal System
In the realm of Indian law, a troubling reality persists beneath the surface: gender bias. Despite strides towards equality, the legal system often fails to deliver impartial justice to men, who frequently face prejudice in various facets of judicial proceedings. This bias manifests glaringly in matters of family law, where stereotypes about male roles and responsibilities still heavily influence judgments. Custody battles, for instance, often favor mothers by default, reflecting societal assumptions rather than individual circumstances. Moreover, laws related to domestic violence and sexual offenses are sometimes skewed, presuming the guilt of the accused based on gender alone. These systemic imbalances not only deny men fair treatment but also perpetuate a cycle of injustice, reinforcing outdated notions of masculinity and victimhood. The complexity deepens when considering societal expectations that pressure men into stoicism, hindering their ability to seek legal recourse or emotional support. As we strive for a truly equitable legal framework, addressing and rectifying gender bias is not just a matter of policy but a moral imperative. Only by acknowledging and dismantling these prejudices can the Indian legal system fulfill its promise of justice for all, irrespective of gender.
The family courts in India were set up as reaction to the many issues that arose against women in India. Various organisations came together demanding justice for women and family courts were established.
The Family Courts Act of 1984 introduced significant provisions aimed at benefiting women, yet their practical implementation often remains more theoretical than effective, hindered by prevailing patriarchal mindsets among conciliators and judicial officers. Despite efforts by the judiciary to align with evolving societal needs, cases involving families with both parents still frequently favor mothers over fathers. This trend reflects deep-rooted societal perceptions that assign mothers the role of primary nurturers, contrasting fathers who are often viewed primarily as providers of financial support.
These societal expectations place immense pressure on families to adhere to traditional gender roles, often resulting in strained interpersonal dynamics and eventual family breakdowns. When families seek resolution through the legal system, these entrenched stereotypes can obscure objective judgment, exacerbating the challenges in achieving fair outcomes. Despite India’s gradual adoption of more egalitarian values, influenced by Western cultures, traditional mindsets persist, influencing decisions within the legal realm.
Addressing these biases necessitates not only legislative reforms and policy changes but also a profound cultural shift towards recognizing and valuing diverse familial roles based on individual capabilities rather than gender stereotypes alone. By actively challenging and dismantling gender bias, the Indian legal system can better fulfill its mandate to provide equitable justice for all citizens, irrespective of gender.
When any issues relating to families come up it is advised to consult the best family lawyer who is not gender biased. Adv. Bindu Dubey is one of the best Advocates in Navi Mumbai who works diligently by analyzing the facts of the case and not supporting one side biased.
With respect to all the stereotypes laid down by the society it can be seen how men many a times face prejudice and bias while any family cases come up. In case of divorce, it has been argued that men are not trusted when they say that they are victims of abuse from their wives. The ground of cruelty is not accepted widely by the court if a male files with respect to it. The counter argument however is that women in India are not given divorce easily as they have to depend on their husbands for everything. In cases of Maintenance, various arguments mention that only women have the power to file for maintenance under the ‘Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956.’
In religions of Hindu, Christians and Parsis the financial position of men are taken into consideration while deciding maintenance. However, Acts like the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936 states that either of the spouse who is not financially stable will be entitled to maintenance. Counter arguments state that various judgments have come up which state women are very well capable of managing their finances rather than depending on the men. In the case of ‘Rupali Vs. Rajat Gupta’ the court held that if the wife is stable financially then she will be denied the maintenance.
With respect to earning money women can be seen facing discrimination and bias more than men, and this is said statistically. Therefore, it can be proven that women need maintenance more than men. The cases with respect to custody can be very challenging for men however. Because it can be seen with respect to various laws that Mother is the natural guardian of the child until five years of age. The father is pushed to be the second guardian.
In the case of ‘Seikh Simran Vs. Sekh Rahaman’ the Muslim law states that the mother will by – default be the child’s guardian until they become seven years of age. Counter Arguments mention that many a times mother will seen as the first caregiver of the child as she has a better and personal bond with the kids. This can be seen in the National law commission report of 1890 where it has been mentioned that the mother can take the custody of the child until they become twelve years old.
In many other cases it can be seen how the mother will be made liable if she is seen to impact the mind of the child to have detest towards the father. This can be seen in the case of ‘Ashish Ranjan Vs. Anupama Tandon’.
Ensuring non-gender-biased Family Courts in India is crucial for enhancing accessibility to justice and reducing conflicts, particularly in cases involving NRI Legal Services. The responsibility largely lies with individual judges, highlighting the need for systemic improvements. One proposed reform involves making family court judgments public rather than private, aiming to mitigate biased and arbitrary rulings. Public scrutiny fosters critical analysis and exposes flaws, prompting necessary legal reforms.
A significant development occurred in December 2020 when a public interest litigation urged the Supreme Court to establish gender-neutral maintenance laws across religions. This reform seeks to base divorce and maintenance decisions on financial stability rather than gender, signaling a substantial step towards equality.
In addressing child custody, the 257th Law Commission report recommended reforms to India’s laws, advocating decisions based on the child’s holistic best interests—financially, emotionally, educationally, and medically. This approach aims to replace gender-based preferences with arrangements that prioritize the child’s welfare, including shared custody arrangements to involve both parents equally in upbringing, thereby promoting fairness and familial harmony.