New Delhi, India — Men Helpline has expressed disappointment over recent remarks made during discussions at Times Evoke under the theme “Technology and Women’s Rights,” where Artificial Intelligence was portrayed as being inherently “designed by men and for men.”

Men Helpline strongly rejects such characterizations, calling them technically flawed and socially divisive.

Prominent economist and Member of the European Parliament, in the said debate, remarked that the digital world promotes toxic masculinity while overlooking crimes committed by women and male issues. Men Helpline believes such framing risks reducing complex technological governance debates to gender-based narratives.

Artificial Intelligence systems are shaped by datasets, institutional policies, and regulatory design — not by biological identity. Reducing complex technological governance questions to gender-origin rhetoric oversimplifies the issue and distracts from measurable fairness standards.

“Selective equality in AI governance risks turning a technical oversight matter into a gender blame narrative,” said Kumar S Ratan, Founder of Men Helpline. “Public policy must remain evidence-based, not ideology-driven.”

Gender is Not an Issue

Men Helpline emphasized that there are ways to identify if any bias exists in AI systems, then the response must focus on structural accountability mechanisms, including:

• Independent audits of training datasets
• Publication of comparative error rates
• Transparency regarding content moderation asymmetries
• Clear disclosure of safety filter design standards

In the debate, while bias was discussed during the debate, no empirical dataset or audit evidence was presented to substantiate claims of systemic gender-origin bias.

We believe that technological governance requires transparency, empirical evaluation, and symmetrical enforcement — not identity-based framing.

Equality Must Include Male Vulnerabilities

While public debates often highlight women’s safety in digital environments, Men Helpline pointed out that such discussions frequently overlook male vulnerabilities, including:

• Male suicide rates
• Male victims of domestic violence
• Boys’ educational decline
• Father–child separation
• Male health concerns such as prostate cancer
• Long working-hour patterns with less compensation recognition

“Equality cannot be partial,” the statement added. “Frameworks that consistently ignore male suffering cannot claim to represent universal justice.”

Overcorrection Is Not Justice

Men Helpline cautioned against bringing new imbalance with AI.

“Protecting one gender by marginalizing another does not build fairness — it institutionalizes asymmetry,” the statement added.

We reject any attempt to redefine equality as a one-directional policy tool.

Men Helpline Propose

Men Helpline advocates for:

• Gender-neutral AI governance frameworks
• Symmetrical safety enforcement mechanisms
• Data-driven and independently verifiable audits
• Transparent regulatory standards
• Universal human protection principles

Men Helpline reiterated its opposition to ideological narratives that divide society into competing victim categories.

Closing Statement

Men Helpline urges policymakers, media platforms, and public leaders to adopt balanced, inclusive approaches when discussing technological governance.

“In a rapidly evolving digital era, all genders are adapting, contributing, and striving for growth in equal environments. Framing AI as a gendered instrument risks deepening division rather than strengthening accountability,” the statement concluded.

AI governance must be accountable to all humans.

Justice cannot be selective.

Men Lives Matter Too – End the Bias
Equality Means Everyone

Ironically, while governments run hundreds of schemes aimed at women’s financial empowerment, the legal system still assumes dependency at the time of marital breakdown. This contradiction raises a serious question: Is the law truly empowering women, or is it preserving outdated assumptions?

“This is dependency not empowerment”, Kumar S Ratan

This blog argues for a much-needed reform – Provision of Zero Alimony for Short-Term Marriages.

Today’s Time

• Women participate actively in the workforce
• Remarriage is increasingly common and socially accepted
• Financial independence is no longer an exception

Still our laws function as if every marriage permanently disables a woman’s ability to earn. On contrary that short term marriages which has lasted in few months or in few years, has no much impact on spouse finance, it do not have any significant impact on their career.

Provision of alimony in short marriages often turn into:

• A pressure tactic during divorce negotiations
• A means of financial extortion
• A tool to harass not just the husband, but also his family

This misuse of process of law does not protect women—but it damages the credibility of genuine cases and destroys families through prolonged legal conflict.

Empowerment Vs Permanent Dependency

If a woman is capable to manage business or corporate life are also capable of rebuilding their lives, like men. Allowing women to get a lifetime alimony from husband is like making them permanent dependent on their ex-husband’s hard earned money.

So where there is dependency there is no empowerment, we believe.

Zero Alimony is Justice

Demanding Zero Alimony for short-term marriages is not anti-women. It is pro-justice, pro-equality, and pro-reform.

Laws must protect the vulnerable—but they must also prevent misuse. Law must reflect current social realities, not outdated stereotypes.

Whenever we hear the word dowry, dowry law, society immediately imagines women as victims and men as oppressors. Newspapers, TV channels, and NGOs repeat the oppressors narrative endlessly. One sided Statistics on dowry deaths of women are quoted again and again. But what about the suffering of men? Why is their pain invisible?

At Men Helpline, we see a very different picture. Behind every law that claims to protect women, there are hundreds of men and families being destroyed.

The Harsh Truth of Section 304B and 498A

• Under Section 304B IPC (dowry death), if a wife dies in her matrimonial home, the husband and his family are automatically treated as culprits. No investigation, no fairness — just instant blame.
• Under Section 498A IPC (dowry harassment), men can be arrested solely on the statement of a woman. Even the Supreme Court has called this a form of “legal terrorism” because of the widespread misuse.

But here’s the reality no one wants to discuss: when a husband dies due to harassment, financial pressure, or abuse by his wife, there is no law to protect him. In fact, the wife inherits all his property.

Is this justice?

The Silent Epidemic: Men’s Suicides

• In 2022 alone, over 90,000 married men died by suicide (NCRB data). Family problems and marital stress were the biggest reasons. Compare this to the 6,516 reported dowry deaths of women, and you will see the imbalance in the narrative. More Importantly this law don’t lodge men’s death.
• When a woman dies, society rushes to demand justice. But when a man dies, society shrugs. His death is dismissed as “personal problems,” never linked to harassment or extortion by his wife. This silence is nothing less than discrimination.

Alimony – Punishment for Being Married

Alimony is presented as a woman’s “right.” Courts force husbands to pay lifelong maintenance, even when wives are capable of working. At the same time, governments and NGOs run hundreds of programs for women’s financial empowerment.

So why do courts keep women dependent on men’s earnings? Is this empowerment? Or is it simply punishing men for the act of marriage?

We call this begging, not rights.

Marriage – A Burden for Men

Marriage has become a heavy burden for men. Wives demand that husbands:

• Earn money for the household.
• Share household chores like cooking and cleaning.
• Fund luxuries and comfort.

And yet, the husband is treated as disposable, a servant in his own home. If disputes arise, the entire family — parents, siblings, relatives — can be dragged into criminal cases, all on the mere word of the daughter-in-law.

In business matters, the government talks about liberalization and growth. But in family matters, it promotes criminalization and destruction.

The Collapse of Indian Family Traditions

The sad reality is that decades of feminist lies and biased laws have broken down our Great Indian Family traditions. Families that once stood united are now shattered under the weight of false cases and extortion.

If giving gifts to husbands is called dowry and treated as a crime, then gifts to wives should also be treated as a crime. If demands by husbands are wrong, then demands by wives should also be wrong. Equality must be for both genders — not one-sided empowerment at the cost of men.

Our Call to Brothers

Brothers, we cannot stay silent anymore. The plight of men must be spoken about, written about, and brought into the open. Each false case, each suicide, each broken family is not just a personal tragedy — it is a national loss.

It is time to unite and fight against the misuse of dowry laws, against biased alimony systems, and against the false narratives that portray men only as oppressors.

The truth is simple: men are suffering too, and their suffering deserves justice.

The traditional model often favored sole custody, a wealth of scientific research now powerfully supports joint parenting as the arrangement that most consistently promotes children’s well-being. It is important for parents navigating the emotional and legal challenges of separation or divorce, choosing the right custody arrangement is one of the most consequential decisions for their children’s future.

Moving from Custody to Parenting

The word “custody” carries a connotation of ownership or possession, which fuels litigation by framing the dispute as a contest to “win” the child. In contrast, the term “parenting” shifts the focus from parental ownership to parental responsibility, cooperation, and the child’s developmental needs.

Kumar S. Ratan, who has been working in the area of joint parenting and joint parental responsibility for more than a decade, argues that language shapes legal interpretation, judicial mindset, and litigants’ approach. By adopting the term “parenting” in place of “custody”, India can create a psychological shift in how separated parents view their role — from adversaries seeking control to co-guardians jointly nurturing their child.

Various research studies indicate that children have better lives when they remain connected with both parents and spend healthy, meaningful time with each of them. However, high conflict between parents can negatively affect a child’s development. The current custody laws focus on sole custody, which is like taking the ownership of the child. It is like “prize” for one who wins the custody (often the mother).

“change the vocabulary and mindset — replacing “custody” with “parenting” — so that the law itself becomes an instrument of cooperation rather than conflict.”, Kumar S Ratan

The Best Interest of the Child: The Legal and Ethical Cornerstone

Every custody decision is guided by the principle of the “best interest of the child,” which places the child’s welfare, development, and happiness above all other considerations. This foundational tenet is reflected in international conventions, like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in family law across the world. The crux of the joint parenting argument isn’t about parental equality—it’s about securing the child’s fundamental right to continuous and meaningful relationships with both parents.

What the Empirical Evidence Shows

The science is resounding: studies have repeatedly shown that children in joint custody arrangements fare significantly better than those in sole custody homes, across multiple developmental, emotional, and academic measures. A landmark meta-analysis determined that children raised in joint physical or legal custody are as well-adjusted as those from intact families, and much better adjusted than peers in sole custody settings. These benefits span family relationships, emotional and behavioral health, and self-esteem.

Research also links joint custody to improvements in psychological adjustment, social skills, and academic performance. The involvement of both parents provides children with a stabilizing routine and supportive foundation, reducing the anxieties of post-separation life and helping them focus on learning and healthy social development.

The Role of Both Parents—Particularly the Father

A consistent and involved father-child relationship is a critical component of a child’s long-term health. Studies have found that less time with fathers after divorce correlates with poorer emotional bonds and diminished physical health outcomes in adulthood. More time with dad not only sustains emotional closeness but also predicts stronger, healthier relationships years later.

The evidence is equally compelling for very young children. Contrary to outdated beliefs, even infants and toddlers benefit from regular and overnight time with both parents, fathers included. Denying young children substantial time with either parent, especially their father, can compromise the quality of the developing bond and future emotional security.

Parental Conflict: Separating Fact from Myth

A frequent objection to joint custody is the presence of high parental conflict. Yet, research clarifies that while conflict is stressful, its harmful effects on children are primarily mediated through poor parenting behaviors, not the conflict itself. Most crucially, the benefits of joint parenting—particularly abundant time with both parents—hold true regardless of the level of parental conflict.

A comprehensive review of over 40 studies found that children in shared custody arrangements enjoy better outcomes than those in sole custody homes, even amid high disagreement. These findings suggest that the stabilizing presence of both parents is more powerful than the disruptive effect of parental conflict.

A New Paradigm for Families

Joint parenting represents a transformative approach to post-divorce family life. It dismantles the old assumption that a child must choose one primary home—and instead recognizes their right to strong bonds with both parents. By choosing joint parenting, families aren’t merely dividing time but are investing in a child’s emotional, psychological, and physical future.

Legal professionals, policymakers, and families alike should heed the mounting evidence: the best interest of the child is most often served with two parents, two homes, and shared devotion to their child’s thriving.

References used in the above article

• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; legal best interest principle
• Meta-analysis: Bauserman, R., “Research about Joint Vs. Sole Custody”
• Postdivorce adjustment: “Postdivorce Living Arrangements” study
• Father involvement: Fabricius & Luecken, 2007, “Long-term Physical Health Correlates for Children of Divorce”
• Early childhood consensus: Warshak et al., 2014
• Parental conflict and child adjustment: Clinical Psychology Review study
• Review of 40 shared custody studies: Nielsen, 2014

Whatever we knew about gender-based violence and oppression came only from what mainstream media, textbooks, Bollywood, and activist campaigns wanted us to believe. Stories about men being harassed, abused, or even killed were almost never told. The truth was buried under layers of propaganda.

Today, the rise of social media has changed that. Incidents of men’s harassment, abuse by women, and even cases where women have killed their husbands or abused senior citizens are now reaching the public eye—uncensored, unfiltered, and undeniable. But make no mistake—these incidents didn’t suddenly start happening. They have always existed. The difference is that now we have platforms where the truth can bypass the traditional gatekeepers.

The Myth of “Thousands of Years of Oppression”

One of the biggest lies ever sold to society is the feminist narrative that women have been oppressed for thousands of years. This claim has been repeated so often that it has been accepted as unquestionable truth. In reality, our cultural history tells a different story—one where women held a respected, even sacred place in the family and society.

Feminist activists have weaponized this myth to justify gender-biased laws, dismantle traditional family structures, and paint men as the villains of history. Over the last 70–80 years, this narrative has been carefully cultivated in schools, in the media, and even in government policies.

The Role of Bollywood in Male Demonization

Cinema has always been a powerful tool for shaping public opinion. For decades, Bollywood has churned out movies where men are portrayed as violent, cruel, and morally corrupt—while women are shown as eternal victims. These stories have seeped into our subconscious, influencing how society views men.

The result? A society that is quick to believe the worst about men and dismiss their suffering.

The Cost of Propaganda: A Broken Family System

The family system that sustained Indian society for thousands of years has been systematically weakened.

• False narratives have created mistrust between men and women.
• Laws have been skewed to favor women, often without safeguards against misuse.
• Social attitudes have shifted to assume men are guilty until proven innocent.

The damage is visible—rising divorce rates, fatherless children, and increasing cases of depression and suicide among men.

The Truth Is Finally Out

Social media has given men a voice. Incidents that would have been buried in the past are now being discussed openly. People are questioning the old narratives and asking—why were we never told these stories before? Why was the suffering of men ignored?

The fight for truth is not about hating women—it’s about demanding fairness, equality, and an end to the propaganda that has fueled gender-based injustice for decades.

Finally:

The “men are monsters, women are victims” narrative is crumbling under the weight of reality. Thanks to social media, the truth about men’s harassment is finally coming to light. But this is only the beginning—if we want a society based on fairness, we must challenge false narratives, demand gender-neutral laws, and rebuild the trust that has been eroded over generations.

Date: 24 June 2025
From: Men Helpline Org

Men Helpline has issued an open letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council, raising strong concerns about the biased report A/HRC/59/47 by Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. The report unfairly portrays men only as perpetrators and women only as victims — ignoring the reality of male victims of domestic violence, false accusations, legal harassment, and suicides.

We, the Men Helpline Organization — supporting men who are facing domestic violence, false accusations, gender-biased laws, and mental health crises — strongly object to the biased approach taken in the recent United Nations report titled:

“Sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues” (A/HRC/59/47) submitted by Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem.

Such gender bias in international reports promotes discrimination, fuels one-sided laws, and denies justice to men and boys.

Our Concerns: (stereotypes version of report)

Biased Narrative

The report presents men only as perpetrators and women only as victims. It ignores the lived reality that men and boys also face violence, harassment, false cases, and discrimination under current gender-biased systems.

Denial of Harassment with Men

Nowhere does the report acknowledge male victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse of boys, or men driven to suicide by false allegations and harassment — all well documented across many countries.

Promotion of Legal Discrimination with Men

By asking States to make laws even more sex-specific (female-only protections), the report promotes policies that violate the basic human right of equality before law. Men would continue to be denied protections even when facing violence or false charges.

Ignoring the Issue of False Accusations

False cases under laws like IPC 498A (anti-dowry), false rape or molestation accusations are a growing epidemic in countries like India. Innocent men face arrest, loss of career, family breakdown, social stigma, and even suicide — yet this reality is completely missing in the report.

Silence on Male Suicide Crisis

According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, over 70% of suicides are by men — often due to legal harassment, family breakdown, and gender bias. The UN report ignores this massive human rights crisis.

Report Discards the Reality

Yet — the report completely ignores the reality of harassment with men and instead promotes a narrative that:

Only women and girls are victims of “sex-based violence”
Men are the presumed perpetrators of all violence
There is no mention of the misuse of gender laws, false accusations, or the suicide crisis among men

Our Appeal to the United Nations:

• Recognize that men and boys also face gender-based violence and discrimination.
• Future reports must include male victims and be written in a gender-neutral, objective way — not using one-sided narratives.
• Promote gender-neutral laws that protect all citizens equally, regardless of sex.
• Address the growing global concern of false accusations and the legal system’s bias against men.
• Include male suicide linked to gender-based discrimination as a key human rights issue.
• Discard the Reem Alsalem’s biased report.

The United Nations must not allow its human rights mechanisms to become tools of gender bias. Equality before law, fairness, and neutrality are fundamental values. No human — whether male or female — should be treated as guilty by assumption or denied protection from violence and injustice.

We urge the Human Rights Council to take immediate steps to correct this imbalance and stand for human rights for all.

Refer the attached report for reference.

In a significant judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed a false dowry harassment case filed in 2002 against Mr. Ghanshyam Soni and his family, citing lack of evidence, vagueness of allegations, and gross delay. While this long-overdue relief to the falsely accused is welcome, but the apex court did not initiate any action against the complainant who misused the law. The woman just dragged a man and his entire family through 23 years of trauma, and escaped any consequences.

The case involved generic, unsubstantiated allegations, no medical or corroborative evidence, and clear signs of misuse of legal provisions to harass aged parents-in-law, five sisters-in-law, and even a local tailor. The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash FIR No. 1098/2002 and the chargesheet, admitting that the entire proceedings were unjustified.

“No punishment for false accusers only encourages them further“, quotes Kumar S Ratan, Founder of Men Helpline.

Yet, despite acknowledging the abuse of law, the Court:

• Did not take suo motu cognizance of the false complaint,
• Issued no guidelines to prevent such misuse in the future,
• And did not recommend punishment or perjury proceedings against the false accuser.

Is this a Double Standard?

This judgment raises an uncomfortable question:

What if a man had falsely accused a woman and dragged her through courts for 23 years?

It can be easily imagined the outrage, contempt, and possibly harsh imprisonment that would have followed. But when a woman misuses the law and destroys a man’s life and reputation for two decades, the system quietly lets it go — offering a symbolic justice in the name of justice, without accountability.

The Bigger Problem: Misuse Without Consequences

The Supreme Court on multiple occasions has acknowledged the rampant misuse of Section 498A IPC, but:

• No concrete safeguards are in place to stop misuse.
• There is no mechanism to restore the dignity or compensate the falsely accused.
• The judicial system continues to remain silent on prosecuting false complainants (specifically women), creating an environment where innocent men live in fear and shame for years, while accusers remain untouchable.

Our Stand

We at Men Helpline (group) demand:

• Punishment for false accusers under IPC sections like perjury and malicious prosecution.
• Suo motu guidelines by the Supreme Court to stop blanket arrests and frivolous cases.
• Legal reforms to balance gender laws and protect innocent men and families.

Justice delayed is injustice. But justice denied for the falsely accused — without any accountability for the false accuser — is not just injustice, it is also ignorance of the of the rule of law.

Men Helpline organization is dedicated to supporting men in distress, particularly those falsely accused in dowry harassment or rape cases, while simultaneously advocating for systemic changes that will strengthen and save the Indian family as a whole.

We recognize the crucial role men play within this structure and understand the unique struggles they face.

“law only empowers BAHU in family, which has disrupted the very essence of family“, Kumar S Ratan, Founder of Men Helpline

We believe that a balanced and just legal framework is essential for the well-being of all family members and harmony of family dynamics.

Our Approach

The Men Helpline is working to protect and strengthening the Great Indian family traditions, which has long been the core of a stable society. The increasing misuse of gender-biased laws and the erosion of traditional family values have led to a crisis where men are unfairly targeted, children suffer due to broken families, and society as a whole faces instability.

Men Helpline mission is to fight for justice, advocate for fair laws, and support families in distress.

We offer a confidential helpline, legal guidance, and empower men with knowledge of their rights. We advocate for gender-neutral laws, raising men’s voices on various platforms, meeting with legislators. We strive to create a just society where families thrive and men are treated fairly.

The Save Indian Family Movement

Men Helpline is part of the broader Save Indian Family Movement, which unites activists, legal experts, and affected individuals to demand reforms in family laws. This movement is committed to:

• Ending gender discrimination in family laws
• Fighting against false allegations that break families
• Ensuring that children are not used as weapons in custody battles
• Promoting policies that strengthen the Indian family system

Join Us in Saving the Indian Family

We invite individuals, activists, and organizations to support our mission. Whether you are a victim of legal harassment, a concerned parent, or a well-wisher of family values, your participation can make a difference.

Reach us at

Email us: menhelpline.official@gmail.com

Agra, India – On February 24, Manav Sharma, a 30-year-old recruitment manager at TCS in Mumbai, allegedly took his own life by hanging himself. His family claims that he was harassed by his wife, whom he married just over a year ago. Before his death, Manav left behind a 6.57-minute video.

In this video, Manav appears calm, happy, and composed, pleading for the safety of men. He says, “Please think of men too… Poor guys are very lonely… everything would be fine once he was gone.”

This raises questions about why Manav seemed so happy in his final moments. Did he felt relieved from the pressure and legal bias that he faced?

While Manav was seen calm, and composed but Manav’s wife has alleged that he was an alcoholic. This incident highlights the need for a safer and more supportive system for men.

Manav’s message to society was, “Everything will be fine after I leave this world.” However, the reality is that his death has shifted the burden to his elderly parents.

This raises concerns about the well-being and safety of men in India.

We urge men’s rights activists to come together and protest consistently, possibly every weekend, to demand a more just and supportive system for men.

Some questions that arise from this incident are:-

• How many more lives will be taken due to the lack of support for men?
• When will the system become a safe place for men?
• How many more deaths can the government afford to ignore before taking action?
• Is the government waiting for things to escalate before intervening?

The survival of Indian families is at risk amidst one-sided gender-biased laws, which may ultimately lead to their dismantling in the name of justice. Disputes and disagreements are common in human relationships, and Indian families disputes are no exception. No family is perfect, and disagreements naturally arise. In a healthy society, such conflicts are resolved through dialogue, mutual understanding, and, when necessary, legal intervention.

However, when legal frameworks disproportionately criminalize these disputes and apply biased judgments, they threaten the very fabric of relationships. In India, laws related to domestic violence, dowry harassment, and divorce have been criticized for being excessively one-sided in favor of women, often placing men and their families in distress.

This growing legal bias in favor of women, coupled with the criminalization of domestic disputes, is having a profound impact on family dynamics. Many families find themselves fighting legal battles that stretch over years, draining them financially, emotionally, and mentally.

“The time for change is now. Legal reforms must be introduced, and society must demand justice not just for women, but for families as a whole.“, Kumar S Ratan, founder MHO

This article delves into the legal framework that disproportionately favors women, the consequences of these laws on families, and how families can adapt to survive in such an environment.

Biased Law – The law, instead of protecting families, is tearing them apart:

Over the years, several laws have been introduced in India considering the women’s rights. However, the provisions of law and its implementation has resulted in widespread misuse, leaving families devastated.

Laws such as Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or BNS Section 85 presume the accused guilty until proven innocent, often leading to the arrest of the husband, in-laws and even distant relatives. The Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 law provides financial compensation, residence rights and protection orders to women and courts often grant relief to women without sufficient evidence. Similarly women are granted maintenance and alimony under Section 125 CrPC without considering the husband’s income and obligations.

These laws operate under the assumption that men are perpetrators, placing the burden of proof entirely on them. Even when falsely accused men are acquitted, Indian courts often use the term “lack of evidence” instead of declaring them innocent, implying that a crime may have happened, but the woman failed to prove it. This deep-rooted bias is not just in the law but also within the judiciary and lawmakers.

According to a study by the Centre for Social Research (CSR), nearly 80% of dowry harassment cases filed under Section 498A IPC turn out to be false or exaggerated. The Supreme Court of India has termed this misuse as “legal terrorism”, acknowledging the rising number of false cases that destroy families.

Impact on Family Dynamics of such Bias

Criminalisation of family disputes has led to a major change in the Indian family structure. Married men are living in fear, as even a small argument can lead to police intervention and legal troubles and women realise that they have legal power. Women often use these laws to control their spouses or end the marriage on their terms. Such imbalances have shaken the very framework of family.

This has affected the joint family system, other family members do not want to get into unnecessary trouble because of a family member’s bad marriage. This has even affected the lives of children as they are forced to live separately from their fathers due to the dispute.

The Biased Approach in Legal System

• Presumption of guilt: Most of these laws assume that men are the aggressors and women are the victims.
• No consequences for false allegations: Women who misuse these laws often face no legal repercussions.
• Criminalization of Dispute: In cases like 498A or sec 85 of BNS, men and their families can be arrested without investigation.

However, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) studies show that fatherless parenting leads to increased emotional distress and behavioral problems in children. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data (2022) shows that more than 32% of male suicides in India are linked to marital disputes and false accusations.

Survival of Indian Family

To protect families from being torn apart, there is an urgent need to implement fair legal reforms and adopt precautionary measures:

• Pre-Nuptial Agreements: Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of spouses in case of divorce or marital dispute.
• Electronic Evidence: Keep recordings of conversations and messages to serve as proof in case of false accusations.
• Dissolution of IPC 498A / Sec 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Implement a no-arrest policy and remove the criminalization of family disputes.
• Gender-Neutral Domestic Violence Laws: Ensure both men and women are protected without bias.
• Strict Action Against False Accusations: Introduce equal punishment for those who file false cases.

The Way Forward: A Call for Balance

The criminalization of family disputes and legal bias against men are destroying the very foundation of Indian families using the laws protecting women became a tool for harassment. It is imperative that India moves towards a balanced, gender-neutral approach where both men and women are protected from abuse, false accusations, and legal exploitation.

It is imperative that India moves towards a balanced, gender-neutral approach, where both men and women are protected from abuse, false accusations, and legal exploitation. A legal system that prioritizes mediation over punishment, imposes strict penalties for false cases, and recognizes the importance of family unity is the need of the hour.

Until such legal reforms are introduced, Indian families must equip themselves with legal awareness, strengthen their internal bonds, and support advocacy efforts for a fair legal system. Only then can we ensure the survival of families and the institution of marriage in India.