Introduction
The recent years have seen considerable uproar online concerning the treatment of men under Indian law. It is contended that the justice system of India victimises women, portraying men as perpetrators of physical and sexual offences; impressing an image of them being unable to be the aggrieved victims in any scenario[1]. A need for men’s rights is urged, legally, pointing to maintenance and cruelty in personal laws, the definition and punishment for rape under the Indian Penal Code. Protests[2]and netizens’ constant complaints on microblogging apps as to why the legal bodies and codes have been framed to ‘favour’ women have been surfacing frequently. It becomes, therefore, crucial to dive into the social background with respect to these contentions and analyse the criticised statutes.
Definition of Rape and Its Punishment Under the Indian Law.
Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 63 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita begin to define rape with “A man is said to commit “rape” if he—”. This nature of description places a presumption that only men are capable of committing such offences, and perhaps suggests that only men are to be held liable for committing rape. For a statute drafted in the recent years of 2023, recognition of sexual offences against men should have been expected in the BNS. The portrayal of only females being victims of rape leaves out another range of offences against men, which are unrecognised. The POCSO Act 2012 recognises sexual offences being committed against children of both genders, but an adult male does not have the same acknowledgement as an adult female in this regard. The prevalence of a high rate of offences against women[3] is already poisoning the social structure of the country, preventing any further progression. It is understood that the legal institutions will prioritise the protection of women after such records. However, having no collection of data or, more importantly, safeguards for sexual offences against men further encourages patriarchy, deeming men incapable of being vulnerable to them.
Maintenance and Anti-Dowry Laws
India has seen dowry as a social evil rooted in customs for the longest time in history until the emergence of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, which makes giving and receiving dowry a punishable offence. This is further highlighted in section 498 A of IPC, which delves into ‘Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.’[4]
Although after the Atul Subash case in 2024, men’s rights activists have come to the frontlines to bring forth the unjust misuse of these laws. They contend that anti-dowry laws become a leeway for women to harass and blackmail their husbands and their families under false accusations, further contributing to be a cause of suicide among these married men. They have been urging that laws have to be made gender neutral, and these laws have to be either rewritten or repealed to stop such occurrences.[5] What this approach fails to analyse are the atrocities still perpetuated against people despite these anti-dowry laws being in place. Dowry is a matrimonial ritual of India that feigns ignorance over the law, simply with a matter of what is labelled as ‘mutual understanding’ to give and receive‘gifts’, consequences in the long run are seldom foreseen by the giver. The Hindu reports that a total of 6156 deaths have been recorded by the NCRB as of 2023.[6] If the end goal is societal progress and serving justice, this move doesn’t help the case. It can be argued that the misuse of any law weighs injustice on the innocent; nevertheless, the misuse of these particular laws shouldn’t be ignored.
Several misconceptions regarding maintenance and alimony have also arisen. In section 144 of the BNSS, maintenance for women, children and parents is ordered if the person has sufficient means. The ‘person’ in the statement refers to a man, since the language refers to ‘his wife’, ‘his legitimate or illegitimate child’, ‘his father or mother’ in the statute.[7] Many contend that this is a discriminatory rule against men, as the law bears the responsibility of maintenance solely upon men. The law only holds men with sufficient means accountable, and it only applies to women who are unable to maintain themselves. The fact that the societal structure is set up in a manner that women are often forced to give up their means of earning after marriage or after bearing children is often overlooked. Getting back to being employed after being ‘rid’ of these marital pressures doesn’t remain as much of a simple option as it is argued to be, especially if the woman bears the custody of a child. Many personal laws also grant a right to claim maintenance after divorce and during the process of separation. The calculation of alimony is not done using a fixed method; it lies within the discretion of the court to do so, while taking factors such as earnings of both spouses, standard of living during the marriage and many others into consideration. Disproportionate alimony amount grants pinpoint bigger problems in the functioning of legal institutions. Callously enough, alimony is being put on a comparable scale with dowry. While morally, there should be provisions for women to also bear responsibility to maintain their spouses and children after a separation or divorce, the ground reality is that less than 50% of women actually contribute to the working force ratio in the country.[8]
CONCLUSION
“Patriarchy hurts men too” When we fail to recognise men as victims, we deter the spirit of equality just the same. Nevertheless, these instances should not be weaponised to subscribe to misogyny as well. The general public tends to form a ‘man bad- woman bad’ while analysing these issues in the statutes and institutional functioning, which leads to a hate train rather than an urge for redressal. Indian laws have been framed to safeguard women in most aspects due to the long history of their oppression. A singular view of labelling these laws as biased against men wouldn’t be a studied stance. A need for amendments and inclusivity persists.
Author(s) Name: Sejal Singh (Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College)
References:
[1]Sannidhi Agrawal, ‘Laws Biased against Men in the Indian Penal Code’ (2020) 2(3) International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation
[2] Harpreet Bajwa, ‘Rising against injustice as one: Inside India’s largest men’s rights movement pushing for gender-neutral laws’ The New Indian Express https://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/2024/Jun/16/rising-against-injustice-as-one-inside-indias-largest-mens-rights-movement-pushing-for-gender-neutral-laws accessed 13 January 2026.
[3] Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Women and Men in India 2020 Table 6.1
[4] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 498A.
[5] Geeta Pandey, ‘A man’s suicide leads to clamour around India’s dowry law’ BBC News (Delhi, 23 December 2024)https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33d6161z3yo accessed 14 January 2026
[6] ‘Dowry cases rise by 14% in 2023; over 6,100 women killed: NCRB’ The Hindu (New Delhi, 3 October 2025) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/dowry-cases-rise-by-14-in-2023-over-6100-women-killed-ncrb/article70116195.ece accessed 14 January 2026
[7] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 144
[8] Press Information Bureau, ‘Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) – Key Employment Unemployment Indicators for 2024’ (9 April 2025)