When rights are not equivalent to justice: An analysis of domestic violence and Gender Justice through feminist views.
The Oxford dictionary defines domestic violence as ‘violent or aggressive behaviour within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner.’ While I understand that the forestated definition is what domestic violence essentially is, I believe that this definition doesn’t even begin to explore the true meaning and horrors behind what these survivors have to face. Taking this into consideration, there have been many laws protecting survivors, not only in India, but across the world. However, if legal protection exists, why do survivors still struggle to obtain justice? Domestic violence is the single, largest category of reported crime against women in India, exceeding rape and dowry deaths. In other words, nearly 3 out of 10 reported crimes are ones of domestic violence by husbands or relatives. Legal protection against survivors fail to provide effective and time efficient justice because legal solutions operate within broader economic and social power. This discourages reporting, delays enforcement of the laws and limits the availability to basic, yet meaningful protection.
The law plays a crucial role in transforming domestic violence into a matter that was once dismissed as something unimportant and inconsequential to a real recognition as a violation of rights, safety and dignity. India’s legal response is primarily embedded in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The act was established to provide women with effective protection against violence occurring within the home. The Act adopts a broader definition of domestic violence as physical, economic, verbal or emotional, as well as sexual abuse. Some of the key protections available to survivors are: protection orders, residence rights, monetary relief, custody orders and compensation, aiming to safeguard the dignity and security of survivors. The Act shows the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution of India. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 15 (3) permits the state to make special provisions for women and children, allowing protective legislations such as the PWDVA. Article 21 guarantees the right to live and personal liberty, which the courts have interpreted to live with safety, dignity, autonomy and freedom from violence. By protecting women from domestic abuse, the Act seems to uphold these values of equality, safety and personal security.
In Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, the supreme court struck down the words ‘adult male’ from the Act’s definition of respondent. This expanded the scope of the law by allowing complaints not only against men, but also against female relatives who have committed domestic violence inside a home. This reinforced its commitment to protecting and justifying the survivors of domestic abuse.
All of this draws to the impending question that if women are equal to men under the law, why do they still experience unjust outcomes?
One prominent reason legal protection fails is because survivors don’t often get a chance to seek it. Surveys indicate that a large majority of survivors never seek legal help. This shows that the true scale of domestic violence in India is substantially higher than what crime statistics alone let on. The most important reason as to why this happens is simple: social barriers. There is a lot of social stigma and negative attitude towards a woman speaking up against her abuser. Society often tells a woman that it is on her to ‘adjust’ or ‘keep the family together’. She is blamed for her own abuse. She is told that marriage is a ‘compromise’. Her own family discourages her from reporting the abuse to avoid bringing ‘shame to the family name’. This matters very deeply because even when legal remedies exist, victims often hesitate to seek help due to fear of judgement from society. This kind of social stigma undeniably enforces patriarchal behaviour that has normalized prioritizing family image over true justice for a woman or her safety.
Another reason why the legal system fails so many survivors is economic dependence. Women often rely on their husbands for housing, food, their children’s education, etc. Leaving an abusive household can mean losing the financial security she has, and that is terrifying. A survivor may know her legal rights but also be afraid of leaving because she is worried about things like supporting her children and meeting her basic needs. Economic dependence on her partner can limit a victim’s freedom even when the law grants it.
Many times, there are a lot of difficulties in making sure that the law is actually implemented. A court issues an order, police does not respond and authorities lack resources, thus leading to the case not being carried out properly and prompt disappointment in the legal system. This matters because there is no use of a law looking strong on paper if there is failure to enforce it. The gap between what is written on paper and actual enforcement is what the justice system finds a challenge. Achieving gender justice requires more than the survivor protection laws on paper. It mostly requires easy accessibility and effectiveness of them in real time.
Another thing that domestic violence leads to is the little children in the house witnessing the violence, leading to severe emotional distress and a higher possibility of the child thinking that it is normal and okay for them to either perpetrate violence, or quietly accept the abuse happening with them. This is a legal issue, not just a disagreement between family members. Calling it ‘a private family matter’ only discourages reporting and trivializes it. Legal intervention can help challenge these patriarchal norms and promote accountability. Through feminist legal theory lens, I believe that laws often fail, not because of their absence but their failure to see the economic and social imbalance of power which makes it difficult for survivors to actually speak up and seek justice. I think it is important to recognise domestic violence as not only an individual act of abuse, but a systemic failure that made someone think that physical violence was ever the answer to their issues.
Another thing this kind of mindset does, is raise a broader question of whether women, almost 50% of the world’s population are truly equal in the eyes of law. Well, the short answer to this question, is yes on paper, but not in practice. Most modern democracies, including India, recognize women and men as equal before the law. The Indian Constitution guarantees prohibition of discrimination based on sex (Article 15) and equal opportunity in public employment (Article 16). It is because of these principles that laws cannot treat women like they are inferior citizens. Unfortunately, legal equality and real-life equality are often not the same thing. In addition to the barriers that women often face as stated earlier, things like court delays and unequal power structures are another reason equality remains an unattainable dream. Justice that takes years to arrive does not protect victims. Cultural norms and gender roles can also affect how rights are exercised in practice.
These barriers to justice exist because the legal rights that we have operated within a society that has unequal gender relations. Gender norms are a huge contribution to said barriers because of a number of reasons, the first being the patriarchy. Patriarchy refers to a system where men have traditionally held greater power in political, economic and family life. Patriarchal norms can normalize male control within households and discourage women from challenging abuse. It normalizes expectations that women should be ‘self-sacrificing’, ‘obedient’, ’submissive’ and solely responsible for raising a family.
Feminist legal theory suggests that domestic violence is often not just individual misconduct. Rather, it reflects on larger structures of patriarchy and unequal power. The abusive partner may often be in possession of greater economic resources, social influence, or physical power, making the victim hesitant to leave. Even when legal protection is available, these power dynamics can affect the person’s ability to get a lawyer, attain evidence and withstand lengthy court proceedings.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that different women face different barriers. A woman may face additional disadvantages like poverty, disability, lower caste, etc. This concept of intersectionality, developed by Kimberle Crenshaw, highlights experiences of discrimination are shaped by multiple, overlapping factors. An intersectional perspective reminds us that gender justice requires attention to these overlapping forms of disadvantage rather than treating women as a single, uniform group.
The law makes significant efforts to eliminate gender-based inequality. Constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality as well as PWDVA, provide important protections for survivors. However, I believe that law alone cannot get rid of these deeply uprooted social norms. Legal reforms may establish rights but effective justice cannot be given without implementation and, efficient courts and broader social awareness. From a feminist perspective, I believe that the challenge is not merely creating laws against domestic violence. It is making sure that legal institutions recognise the power structures that enable the persistence of such violence.
An example of how the justice system continually fails many women everywhere is the case of Twisha Sharma, model and actor, who married advocate Samarth Singh in December 2025 and moved to Bhopal after marriage. On 12th May, 2026, Twisha was found dead at her marital home. The initial claim of her death by suicide was challenged by her family who claimed that she had faced harassment regarding dowry. This is of significance because her mother-in-law, Giribala Singh is a retired district judge, leading to concerns about whether her investigation would be fully impartial. Investigators are trying to determine whether she died by suicide, or by dowry harassment and other criminal claims. I believe that this is classic example of the gap between legal protection on paper and the implementation of it in real life. It also raises the question whether women can access justice when powerful people are involved.
There is a myriad of things we can do to fix this, such as finding ways to improve legal aid, financial security for victims and gender sensitive training to police officers, lawyers and social workers. I cannot stress how important I think gender sensitive training is. Without it, people might dismiss important issues (like domestic violence), as a private family matter. This training will help reduce discriminatory behaviour and promote equality. One thing we should all keep in mind is that if a teenaged girl such a myself can offer these basic remedies to such important social problems, then are the ones in power truly fit for their job?
It is time we start recognising domestic violence less as a private family matter and more as a gender justice issue. Even though it occurs behind closed walls, its consequences extend into courtrooms and hospitals alike. It is a violation of human rights. Everyone has a right to dignity and safety. Many men cower behind the false pretense that after marriage, their wife is their property and consent does not matter because of the mere fact that they are legally bound together. I cannot begin to express my deep disgust of this kind of toxic masculine mentality. When violence occurs within a family, it is still a crime and a breach of the fundamental human rights that a woman deserves. I cannot believe that people are debating whether things like domestic violence within a marriage and marital rape are a crime in 2026. It really leads to the question of whether we are actually progressing as society.
To conclude, I would like to reaffirm my thesis by saying gender justice will not be a reality unless we bridge the gap between what is written on paper and real-life. True gender equality demands not only laws that state men and women are equal in the eyes of law, but institutions that respect and respond to these laws.
Bibliography:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s44263-024-00056-3?
Twisha Sharma Case Explained: Dowry Allegations, Family Claims And The Supreme Court’s Intervention - Oneindia News
Twisha Sharma case so far: A timeline of events as Supreme Court takes cognisance
Twisha Sharma case timeline: Marriage, mysterious death, FIR and courtroom battle | Bhopal News - The Times of India
I also consulted google for various fact-checks.
Nayanika Nair
Guest Contributor
Contributor to the Empoweress collection.