Challenges Facing Marriage in India – Legal, Social, Psychological, and Historical Dimensions

Legal Challenges

Misuse of Protective Laws (Section 498A IPC and Domestic Violence Act)

India has enacted laws like Section 498A of the IPC (anti-cruelty/dowry harassment) and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) to safeguard women from abuse. While these laws serve as crucial shields for victims, there is growing concern about their misuse in some cases. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that “many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive” (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube). In the landmark Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI (2005), the Court even warned that “by misuse of the provision, a new legal terrorism can be unleashed” (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube). Similarly, in Preeti Gupta v. Jharkhand (2010), it noted that exaggerated allegations are common and called for a serious legislative relook (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube).

Section 498A (dowry cruelty) allows immediate criminal charges against a husband and his relatives. In practice, this has sometimes led to frivolous or retaliatory cases in marital disputes. The abuse of 498A often manifests as a tool to pressure the husband’s family – for instance, by naming even distant or elderly relatives in the FIR without specific evidence (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases). The Supreme Court recently observed a “growing tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise” and directed courts to “exercise caution” to prevent “harassment of innocent family members.” (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) In one 2024 case, the Court quashed a dowry FIR with “vague and omnibus” allegations, noting some accused had “no connection to the matter” (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases). Such judicial interventions underscore the need for filtering out false cases at an early stage.

Official data also reflect this pattern. In 2022, 1.4 lakh cases of “cruelty by husband or relatives” were reported, but the conviction rate was low – the provision saw 35,998 acquittals (the highest for any crime against women), and 7,076 cases were found to be false upon investigation (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem). Critics argue that 498A and related provisions are sometimes used as “bargaining chips” in divorce/maintenance settlements (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem). Multiple simultaneous cases (498A, Dowry Prohibition, DV Act, maintenance, etc.) can overwhelm the husband’s family, effectively leveraging a legal onslaught for monetary or personal gain (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem). This misuse can devastate families – there are reports of aged parents, even “bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers, being arrested without a prima facie case”, as noted by the Court in Arnesh Kumar v. Bihar (2014) (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube). Such trauma to entire families has raised alarms about fairness.

The Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), a civil law providing protection orders and relief to wives or female partners, has likewise faced accusations of misuse. Because the Act’s threshold for claiming abuse is lower (it covers verbal, emotional, and economic violence too), husbands allege it can be invoked on exaggerated grounds to eject them from the home or to fast-track a favorable settlement. In the wake of a recent high-profile suicide (the Atul Subhash case), a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court seeking a review of both 498A and the DV Act to curb their abuse (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). The petition argues that these laws, meant to protect women, have “become weapons to settle…illegal demands and to suppress the husband’s family”, and that false cases not only harm innocent men but also undermine genuine victims (causing real complaints to be viewed with suspicion) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws).

It is important to stress that misuse cases are a minority relative to the huge number of valid cases of abuse. Nonetheless, the impact of even a few false accusations is severe: men have lost careers and reputations, and some have been driven to suicide (as discussed later) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). Recognizing this, courts and lawmakers have initiated corrective steps. The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (2014) directed police not to arrest automatically in 498A cases and to follow due diligence (e.g. issue notice first) (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube). In Rajesh Sharma v. UP (2017), the Court even suggested Family Welfare Committees to scrutinize 498A complaints before action (Section 498A anti-dowry law: Supreme Court modifies its 2017 order for family welfare committees), though this particular step was later retracted in 2018 on legal grounds (Section 498A anti-dowry law: Supreme Court modifies its 2017 order for family welfare committees). Today, many jurisdictions mandate preliminary mediation or counseling upon a 498A/DV complaint to see if a compromise is possible before FIR. These measures aim to preserve the spirit of the protective laws while preventing their weaponization against innocents.

In sum, Section 498A and the DV Act remain vital for women’s safety, given the reality of dowry harassment and domestic abuse. But there is now ample evidence (court rulings, NCRB data, and tragic cases) that safeguards against frivolous or mala fide use are needed. The challenge for the legal system is striking a balance: protecting vulnerable wives without creating new classes of victims (wrongly accused husbands and relatives). Courts have called for legislative reforms to penalize false complaints and screen complaints for genuineness (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). Going forward, a more nuanced application of these laws – with accountability for misuse – is being urged to maintain public faith in marital laws.

Marital Rape: Status and Debates

The issue of marital rape in India highlights a stark legal gap in protecting sexual autonomy within marriage. Under current Indian law, a husband cannot be criminally charged with raping his adult wife. Exception 2 to IPC Section 375 (rape) explicitly exempts “sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife” (above a certain age) from the definition of rape (Challenge to the Marital Rape Exception – Supreme Court Observer). This means that forced sex by a husband, no matter how violent, is not a criminal offense (it can be grounds for divorce or cruelty, but not rape). India’s new draft penal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, retains this exception in Section 63, stating that intercourse with one’s wife (over 18 years of age) “is not rape” (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law) (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law).

This legal position has come under intense scrutiny. Women’s rights advocates argue that the exception violates a woman’s fundamental right to consent and bodily integrity. In May 2022, the Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict on marital rape: Justice Rajiv Shakdher struck down the exception as unconstitutional, affirming that marriage does not imply irrevocable consent, whereas Justice C. Hari Shankar disagreed, opining that marital relations have a unique character and warning that criminalizing these acts could destabilize the institution of marriage (Challenge to the Marital Rape Exception – Supreme Court Observer). With the High Court divided, the matter went to the Supreme Court. As of 2025, the Supreme Court is hearing petitions on whether the marital rape exception should be repealed. Notably, the Karnataka High Court in 2022 (in Sree Kumar v. Pearly Sahoo) took a progressive stand, calling the exception “regressive” and holding that “no exception in law can be so absolute that it becomes a license for a husband to commit a crime” (Challenge to the Marital Rape Exception – Supreme Court Observer). However, that judgment was stayed by the Supreme Court pending final decision (Challenge to the Marital Rape Exception – Supreme Court Observer).

The debate is polarizing. The Union government has thus far opposed criminalization. It submitted that the Indian social context – including literacy levels, women’s financial dependence, social customs, and the view of marriage as a sacrament – must be considered before such a change (A history of the movement to criminalise marital rape across the world | Research News – The Indian Express) (A history of the movement to criminalise marital rape across the world | Research News – The Indian Express). Officials have expressed concern that a marital rape law could be misused and might “destabilize marital harmony”. In one statement to Parliament in 2015, a minister argued that “marriage is sacred in India and the concept of marital rape, as understood internationally, cannot be applied here”, even suggesting that “no one would complain” due to societal norms (A history of the movement to criminalise marital rape across the world | Research News – The Indian Express). These arguments have been criticized by activists as patriarchal and outdated, effectively suggesting that a wife’s consent is secondary to preserving marriage at any cost.

On the other side, there is mounting pressure from civil society and even some lawmakers to change this. Women’s groups point out that marital rape can cause severe trauma akin to other sexual violence – often worse, because the woman has to continue living with her violator. The exception is seen as denying married women equal protection of law. In late 2023, an MP introduced a Private Bill to remove the exception, stating it “sends a dangerous message that a woman’s consent is irrelevant once she is married” (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law) (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law). The exception is indeed a colonial relic based on the old notion of wives as property; most countries have abolished it. By comparative perspective, India is among a shrinking minority of nations that do not criminalize marital rape. As of 2019, 150 countries worldwide had made marital rape a crime (A history of the movement to criminalise marital rape across the world | Research News – The Indian Express). Many common-law countries that inherited similar exceptions (like the UK, which ended the marital rape immunity in 1991, and Canada, Australia, etc.) have long since reformed their laws. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and a few others remain holdouts, with India’s exception now applying only when the wife is ≥18 (intercourse with a wife below 18 is recognized as rape due to child protection laws) (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law). Even within South Asia, there are nuances: for example, Sri Lanka allows marital rape prosecution only upon legal separation, which is a very limited scope (A history of the movement to criminalise marital rape across the world | Research News – The Indian Express).

The judiciary’s approach in India has been cautious but evolving. The Supreme Court has indicated it will decide on the constitutionality of the marital rape exception, and during hearings, judges questioned the logic of how protecting a wife from rape would “destroy marriage” – pointing out that dignity and equality in marriage are also important. In the meantime, victims of marital sexual violence have some indirect remedies: they can file under Section 498A (cruelty) if the abuse is severe, or under the DV Act for sexual abuse to get civil reliefs. However, these are poor substitutes for recognizing the act as a serious crime.

In summary, marital rape remains legal by omission in India, reflecting a clash between traditional views of marriage and modern notions of individual rights. The issue is in flux: courts, lawmakers, and society are actively debating whether India should join the majority of countries in criminalizing marital rape, or whether alternate approaches (such as stronger civil remedies) suffice. A resolution from the Supreme Court or Parliament in the near future could fundamentally change the legal landscape, bringing laws in line with the principle that marriage does not imply constant consent. Until then, marital rape sits at the uncomfortable intersection of legal immunity and moral injustice, a challenge India’s legal system is grappling to resolve.

Social and Psychological Issues

The Dowry System: Historical Origins and Contemporary Impact

Dowry, the practice of the bride’s family giving money, goods, or property to the groom’s family, has deep historical roots in India. Its origin is often traced to the concept of kanyādān (gift of a daughter) and strīdhana (a woman’s own property) in ancient times ([PDF] Institution of Dowry in India: A Theoretical Inquiry). In early epochs, dowry was not the pervasive social evil it later became. Scholars note that in the Vedic period, marriages were largely accompanied by bridewealth (groom’s family giving gifts to the bride’s side) rather than dowry, and women had some inheritance rights (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia) (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia). Textual evidence (even from ancient foreign observers like Arrian in 300 BCE) suggests that dowry was often absent or marginal in ancient India; beauty and character of the bride mattered more than her wealth (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia) (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia). Over time, especially in later Hindu law, giving jewelry and gifts to the bride became customary, but these were intended for her welfare and not as demands from the groom (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia).

The evolution of dowry into a widespread expectation is linked to socio-economic changes. During the medieval and colonial periods, patriarchal norms hardened – marriages became a transaction tied to family status. Under British rule, laws like the 1860 IPC and personal law codes initially did nothing to curb dowry. In fact, until the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughters in many communities had no equal inheritance rights in parental property (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia). This likely reinforced dowry as a form of pre-mortem inheritance for the daughter: since she wouldn’t inherit land or wealth, a substantial dowry was given at marriage as her “share.” Unfortunately, this morphed into a social obligation and a tool of greed – grooms became “commodities” commanding a price, and families competed to marry daughters into better (wealthier or higher status) families by offering more dowry. Factors like caste, social pressure, and the marriage squeeze (more eligible brides than grooms in some communities) led to dowry inflation over the 20th century.

By the mid-20th century, the dowry system was causing rampant abuse. Demands for dowry can continue after marriage, and failure to meet them has led to harassment, domestic violence, and even deaths of young brides. The term “dowry death” entered the lexicon for cases where brides were killed or driven to suicide by relentless dowry demands. Despite being outlawed by the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, dowry persists across much of India. The law defines dowry expansively and criminalizes both giving and receiving dowry (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia), but enforcement is challenging due to societal collusion and under-reporting. Even today, thousands of women die in dowry-related incidents annually. According to NCRB data, India registers around 6,000 to 7,000 dowry deaths each year ( Press Release:Press Information Bureau ). (In 2020, for example, there were 6,966 reported dowry death cases ( Press Release:Press Information Bureau ).) This grim statistic only hints at the scale of suffering; many more cases of dowry harassment go unreported or stop short of death (ending in injury or divorce instead). Dowry-related cruelty is precisely what Section 498A IPC was enacted to address in 1983, as marital cruelty and dowry demands were driving women to suicide in large numbers (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem).

The socio-economic drivers of dowry today include: prevailing patriarchal attitudes (viewing daughters as a “burden” to be married off with gifts), the prestige associated with lavish marriages, and the bargaining dynamic in arranged marriages (educated, high-earning grooms often come with higher dowry expectations – sometimes euphemistically called “gifts”). In some regions and communities, dowry has become almost institutionalized, with rate cards for grooms based on their profession or visa status. This places enormous financial burden on the bride’s family and can impoverish them (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia). It also skews the power equation in the marriage from the outset, sometimes giving the husband’s family a sense of entitlement that fuels mistreatment of the bride.

Beyond immediate violence, dowry corrodes the marital relationship. A marriage that begins with a price tag can lack respect for the bride; she may be treated as someone who was “bought.” Fights over unmet dowry expectations can lead to chronic abuse, creating a toxic environment in the home. Many marital breakdowns in India cite dowry as a root cause – either the wife leaves due to abuse, or the husband seeks escape if constant monetary issues plague the union. Even when divorce is not pursued, the psychological toll on women who face dowry harassment is immense (as discussed next). Dowry expectations also delay or derail marriages – some women remain unmarried because their families cannot afford the demanded dowry, leading to social and emotional consequences.

Historically, Indian society venerated marriage as a sacrament – an indissoluble union – and the bride was called “Lakshmi” (goddess of prosperity) entering the groom’s home. It is ironic that today this notion is perverted by the dowry system, where the bride is seen as bringing literal wealth. Social reformers from the 19th century onwards (from Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar to contemporary activists) have decried dowry, yet it endures as a multifaceted problem: a mixture of tradition, economic transaction, and social status symbol. Eradicating it requires not just legal action but a shift in mindset – something that is happening slowly through education and women’s empowerment. Until then, dowry will remain a central factor in many Indian marriages, often lurking behind closed-door conflicts and tragedies.

Psychological Toll of Marital Disputes on Men, Women, and Children

Marital discord and litigation exact a heavy psychological toll on all parties – husbands, wives, and children. In the Indian context, where marriage is deeply entwined with personal identity and family honor, the stress of a failing or conflict-ridden marriage can be extreme.

Impact on Men: In traditional gender roles, men are expected to be stoic providers, which often means they have fewer outlets to express emotional distress. However, statistics reveal a concerning picture of male distress in marriages. The National Crime Records Bureau data show that far more married men die by suicide than married women each year. In 2022, for instance, 83,713 married men died by suicide, over 2.7 times the number of married women (30,771) who did so (Bengaluru techie case draws focus to ‘higher suicide rate’ among married men; here’s what data shows) (Bengaluru techie case draws focus to ‘higher suicide rate’ among married men; here’s what data shows). While the reasons vary (financial troubles, health, etc., are factors too), “family problems” and “marriage related issues” are significant contributors. Many men feel intense pressure from marital conflict – be it constant fights, fear of legal cases, or loss of access to children – and they may also feel systemically voiceless if they face abuse (since societal sympathy typically leans toward wives). In recent public discourse, cases like Atul Subhash – a 34-year-old techie who died by suicide after detailing how multiple cases filed by his wife ruined his life – have highlighted men’s mental health issues. Atul’s 24-page note and video accused the legal system of bias and described his despair (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases). His case, sadly, is not isolated. Men’s rights groups claim scores of men have ended their lives unable to cope with matrimonial disputes and the stigma of being labeled “abusers” unjustly (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws).

Psychologically, men in contentious marriages may experience severe anxiety, depression, and social isolation. The threat of arrest or criminal charges (real or perceived) can hang like a sword, causing chronic stress. Many men report feeling humiliated and helpless when embroiled in lawsuits or when cut off from their children due to protective orders. Unfortunately, traditional norms discourage men from seeking therapy or help – though this is slowly changing with the emergence of support groups and helplines. (Notably, a men’s helpline run by NGOs received over 50,000 calls in one year from men seeking psychological or legal counsel, indicating the scale of need (India’s only helpline for men in distress gets over 50,000 calls this year | Chandigarh News – The Indian Express).) The internalization of pain sometimes manifests in substance abuse or suicidal ideation. The problem is compounded by a lack of formal support systems for men; unlike women, men do not have an extensive government-backed infrastructure for domestic abuse or trauma, leaving many to suffer in silence.

Impact on Women: Women often bear the brunt of marital conflict, especially in a society where domestic violence and spousal coercion are unfortunately common. The psychological trauma of living in an abusive or deeply unhappy marriage can include depression, anxiety disorders, and PTSD. A community-based study in Delhi found that women who experienced domestic violence had significantly poorer mental health and more suicidal tendencies than those who had not ( Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care ). Constant fear and belittlement in one’s own home erode self-esteem; many women report feelings of entrapment and hopelessness. Moreover, cultural conditioning may pressure women to “save the marriage” at all costs, causing them to endure years of mental agony rather than seek separation. The result can be emotional numbness, or in some cases, severe outcomes like self-harm or suicide. India tragically records a large number of female suicides linked to “marital issues” (which includes dowry harassment, abusive husbands, etc.). The term “dowry death” often includes suicides where a woman is driven to kill herself by abuse. While about 30,000 married women’s suicides a year is already high (Bengaluru techie case draws focus to ‘higher suicide rate’ among married men; here’s what data shows), it is likely an undercount of the mental health crisis because many more live on with untreated trauma. For those who do seek help, the PWDVA allows women to get counseling and protection orders, and there are shelter homes and crisis centers. Yet stigma often stops women from openly talking about mental distress; a woman leaving a marriage due to “emotional abuse” might not get family support as readily as if she had visible injuries. This scenario is slowly improving as awareness grows that emotional abuse is real abuse and that women’s mental well-being is paramount.

Impact on Children: Children are the often-invisible victims of marital discord. A household rife with parental conflict or litigation becomes an unsafe emotional space for a child. Numerous studies globally have shown that children who witness domestic violence or constant quarreling suffer developmental and psychological harm – ranging from anxiety, regression in younger kids, to aggression or depression in older ones. In India, where children usually remain with the mother during disputes, they may directly witness their mother being harassed or their father being taken away by police, etc. This can manifest as nightmares, withdrawal in school, declining academic performance, or even health issues. If a marriage ends in separation, children frequently experience trauma from custody battles and the loss of a stable two-parent environment. Acrimonious divorces can lead to parental alienation, where one parent poisons the child’s mind against the other, causing long-term relational difficulties for the child. The PIL mentioned earlier pointed out that such cases “have a very deep negative impact upon their children. It affects their mental health and behavior…ruin[ing] their proper growth.” (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). Indeed, the Supreme Court has often stated in child custody cases that the child’s welfare is paramount; witnessing parental hostility is never in the child’s interest.

It’s worth noting that not just high-conflict marriages, but even the social pressures around marriage can affect mental health. For example, infertility or the pressure to have a male child in some families can strain a couple and lead to anxiety or depression. The expectation that marriage is a guaranteed path to happiness can leave individuals unprepared for normal disagreements, thus when troubles occur, they feel a deeper sense of failure.

In conclusion, the psychological toll of marital disputes in India is a serious public health and social issue. Mental health interventions are needed alongside legal ones. This includes counseling services in Family Courts, support groups (for both women and men), and greater societal acceptance that seeking help is not a taboo. The human cost – evidenced by depression, broken spirits, and loss of lives – underlines that marital strife is not just a legal battle or a social drama, but a profound psychological battle that needs empathy and professional support to navigate.

Case Studies

Case Study 1: The Atul Subhash Suicide (Bengaluru, 2024)

Background: Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer from Bengaluru, tragically died by suicide in November 2024, thrusting a spotlight on the darker side of marital disputes and legal entanglements. Atul left behind an extensive 24-page suicide note and an 80-minute video, in which he detailed the unraveling of his life due to his contentious marriage. He had married in 2019, but the relationship soured, and by 2023-24 he was embroiled in multiple cases filed by his estranged wife, Ms. Nikita Singhania (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases).

In his farewell message, Atul alleged that his wife and in-laws had lodged numerous criminal cases against him and his family – including a dowry harassment case (498A IPC), a domestic violence case, and others – with the aim of “extort(ing) money” from them (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases). He claimed innocence and expressed despair that the justice system was not hearing his side. Notably, he even leveled an accusation that a judge handling his matter demanded a bribe for settlement (a grave charge indicating his sense of systemic failure) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). Feeling trapped by legal harassment and alleged corruption, Atul took the drastic step of ending his life.

Issues Highlighted: The Atul Subhash case encapsulates several issues: alleged misuse of dowry laws, the slow and cumbersome nature of judicial proceedings, and the mental health collapse of a person under extreme stress. Before his death, Atul spoke of being drained financially and emotionally by fighting cases in multiple courts, in different cities, for years (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem) (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem). This patchwork of litigation (criminal cases, maintenance claims, etc.) is not uncommon in bitter matrimonial disputes; Atul’s situation was an extreme, but illuminating, example of how the legal process itself can become a tool of attrition.

His suicide ignited a national debate on whether men are being victimized by false cases and whether the legal system provides adequate checks. Media coverage and social media discussions were intense. The incident prompted the Supreme Court to make timely observations on the need to prevent frivolous dowry cases. Just days after, in a December 2024 judgment, the Court remarked on the “growing tendency to misuse” anti-cruelty laws and emphasized that sweeping accusations without evidence must be nipped in the bud (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases). This was seen as a direct reference to cases like Atul’s where entire families are roped into criminal cases unjustifiably.

Furthermore, Atul’s death led to concrete action in the form of a Public Interest Litigation filed in the Supreme Court by an advocate, seeking systemic reforms. The PIL urged a review of dowry and DV laws to “stop misuse and abuse”, citing Atul’s case as symptomatic of a wider problem (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). It suggested forming an expert committee to recommend changes, and interestingly, even proposed measures like mandatory registration of marriage gifts/transactions (via affidavits at marriage registration) to have a clear record and deter false dowry claims later (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). The petitioner’s plea was that there are “too many Atul Subhashes” and that “lakhs of men” have faced ruin or suicide in similar circumstances (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). It also highlighted how children and families suffer alongside (Atul’s own aged parents were indirectly victims of his turmoil).

Systemic Challenges: Atul’s case underscores systemic challenges: the potential for legal processes to be drawn-out and adversarial to the point of breaking a person’s will. It raises questions about the effectiveness of safeguards – e.g., were there mediation attempts? Could the courts have consolidated or fast-tracked his cases? It also spotlights the absence of strong mental health support during legal battles; Atul felt voiceless enough to see suicide as the only escape.

Conversely, women’s rights advocates caution against viewing this case in isolation to discredit protective laws. They note that while misuse happens, the majority of 498A/DV cases are genuine, and victims shouldn’t be deterred from coming forward. In commentary, some experts urged focusing on better implementation (weeding out false cases and ensuring genuine victims get justice) rather than blaming women as a whole (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem) (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem).

In conclusion, the Atul Subhash case became a catalyst for reform discourse. It revealed how an ostensibly protective legal framework can backfire if checks and balances fail. The case humanized the statistic of male suicide in marital issues, forcing society and the judiciary to confront the grief and complexity behind the numbers. As a direct result, we see renewed calls for legal reform (the outcome of that PIL is awaited) and a reminder that law enforcement must treat matrimonial disputes with nuance – protecting the vulnerable without presumptively criminalizing the innocent. Atul’s story is a somber reminder of what is at stake when marriages turn into battlefields.

Case Study 2: The Prasanna Sankar Controversy (Ongoing)

Background: Prasanna Sankar is an Indian tech entrepreneur, co-founder of a Silicon Valley company, who became embroiled in a highly publicized marital and custody dispute in 2023–2024. His case illustrates how contentious marriages can spiral into multi-jurisdictional legal battles, with allegations flying both ways. Prasanna, educated at NIT Trichy and a successful startup founder, married his wife Dhivya in India and they lived abroad for many years. Trouble began when Prasanna discovered his wife’s alleged infidelity, after which their marriage broke down (Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankar on run, claims harassment in Divorce case in a long viral post on Twitter – The Times of India).

What followed was a tangle of accusations: Prasanna accused his wife of adultery and of weaponizing the law, claiming she filed “false cases of rape and child kidnapping” against him (Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankar on run, claims harassment in Divorce case in a long viral post on Twitter – The Times of India) (Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankar on run, claims harassment in Divorce case in a long viral post on Twitter – The Times of India). Specifically, after their separation, Dhivya (who is a U.S. citizen) accused Prasanna of abducting their 9-year-old son and even labeled him a “sexual pervert” who had engaged in criminal sexual behavior in the past (Rippling co-founder’s wife says son ‘kidnapped’ by ‘sexual pervert’ husband | Latest News India – Hindustan Times). She went public with videos alleging Prasanna had lost a job in the US due to soliciting prostitution and had faced legal trouble in Singapore for filming women illicitly (Rippling co-founder’s wife says son ‘kidnapped’ by ‘sexual pervert’ husband | Latest News India – Hindustan Times). Prasanna, on the other hand, painted Dhivya as an opportunist: he claimed she cheated with another man, filed a divorce in the US to seek a hefty alimony, and when he initiated legal action, she retaliated with false criminal charges in Chennai (Rippling co-founder’s wife says son ‘kidnapped’ by ‘sexual pervert’ husband | Latest News India – Hindustan Times) (Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankar on run, claims harassment in Divorce case in a long viral post on Twitter – The Times of India).

By late 2024, Prasanna stated that he was “on the run” with his son, evading an arrest warrant from Chennai police, because he believed the local authorities were harassing him at his wife’s behest (Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankar on run, claims harassment in Divorce case in a long viral post on Twitter – The Times of India) (Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankar on run, claims harassment in Divorce case in a long viral post on Twitter – The Times of India). Indeed, Chennai police opened an abduction case when the child was taken from the mother’s custody (even though Prasanna says a U.S. court granted him custody – highlighting jurisdictional conflict) (Rippling co-founder’s wife says son ‘kidnapped’ by ‘sexual pervert’ husband | Latest News India – Hindustan Times) (Rippling co-founder’s wife says son ‘kidnapped’ by ‘sexual pervert’ husband | Latest News India – Hindustan Times). The wife’s side involves not just domestic violence complaints, but also highly defamatory claims about Prasanna and even his father (she accused her father-in-law of being a serial sexual offender as well) (Rippling co-founder’s wife says son ‘kidnapped’ by ‘sexual pervert’ husband | Latest News India – Hindustan Times). This case quickly caught media attention due to Prasanna’s prominence (often dubbed the “Rippling co-founder case” in press) and the sensational nature of claims.

Issues Highlighted: The Prasanna Sankar case illuminates the extremes of marital litigation, especially when wealth, NRI status, and child custody are in play. First, it highlights how men too can face allegations like rape within a marriage – something generally underreported. Prasanna’s wife filed a case under Section 376 (rape), which presumably implies marital rape allegations or other sexual violence charges, given the context. Since marital rape isn’t a crime, it’s possible she framed it as sexual violence during cohabitation or as outraging modesty; regardless, it underscores that when relations sour, spouses may utilize any legal provisions available to gain leverage.

Second, the case shows the complexity of cross-border marriages. The couple’s legal battles spanned three countries – U.S. (where a court apparently adjudicated on custody in Prasanna’s favor), Singapore (where some incidents occurred), and India (where the wife turned for criminal remedies and perhaps a second shot at custody). Such situations reveal gaps in law: an Indian court dealing with custody or criminal charges may not easily recognize a foreign court’s orders, and vice versa, leading to conflicting decisions. It becomes incredibly stressful for the individuals who must fight on multiple fronts. Prasanna became a fugitive in India while claiming to be a lawful custodian of his child per U.S. law – a paradox not easily resolved without diplomatic/legal coordination.

Another issue is the role of police and bias. Prasanna alleges Chennai police harassed him and sided with his wife without proper investigation (Prasanna Sankar, co-founder of Rippling (worth $10B), has alleged …) (Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankar on run, claims harassment in Divorce case in a long viral post on Twitter – The Times of India). If true, it echoes a common complaint that when a woman makes serious allegations (especially invoking sensitive crimes like sexual abuse), the husband often is presumed guilty until proven innocent. On the other hand, from the police perspective, if a mother reports her child kidnapped and accuses the father of perverse behavior, law enforcement is bound to act swiftly to protect the child. This case hence exemplifies the difficult balance authorities must maintain. It also shows how public perception can be split: one narrative sees Prasanna as a victim of false cases by a vindictive spouse, another sees Dhivya as a desperate mother protecting her child from a potentially dangerous father. The truth may be complex, and the courts will have to sift through evidence to determine it.

For the child involved, this situation is nightmarish. A tug-of-war between parents across continents, with allegations of abuse, means the child’s welfare risks being overshadowed by the parents’ vendetta. Cases like this strongly argue for the need of mediation and child-centric negotiation in custody matters – something that seems to have failed here.

From a systemic lens, Prasanna’s saga highlights how wealth and resources can influence marital disputes. He had the means to take the child abroad, litigate in multiple jurisdictions, and even go into hiding. Many Indian husbands (or wives) couldn’t mount such a fight and would be at the mercy of one legal system. His case might set precedents or at least provide lessons on handling NRIs’ marital disputes, international child abduction law (India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on international child custody – which is why such conflicts arise), and police procedure in marital rape or sexual offense accusations by wives.

This case is ongoing, so outcomes are uncertain. However, it starkly demonstrates the “no-holds-barred” nature of modern matrimonial feuds in some instances: adultery, financial manipulation, character assassination, and legal intimidation all rolled into one saga. Importantly, it shows that men can be complainants too (Prasanna, via social media, effectively became a whistleblower about his wife’s alleged affair and what he sees as her misuse of law), and women can be accused of wrongdoing (she is accused of extortion/false cases). In Indian society, this role-reversal (man as victim, woman as alleged abuser) is not the dominant narrative, which is why the case draws so much attention.

In conclusion, the Prasanna Sankar case is a cautionary tale of how a marriage can turn into a multi-headed legal hydra, damaging everyone involved. It underscores the need for robust legal frameworks for custody (especially international), fair handling of sexual offense allegations in domestic contexts, and perhaps most crucially, the importance of alternative dispute resolution. Had there been effective marriage counseling or mediation early on, such mutually destructive escalation might have been averted. The case remains a live example of the multifaceted challenges this report seeks to analyze – legal, social, and psychological – all converging in one family’s ordeal.

Government and Judicial Response

Legal Reforms and Judicial Measures for Fairness

The Indian government and judiciary have gradually responded to the above challenges with a mix of law reforms, guidelines, and enforcement tweaks. Recognizing both the plight of women facing cruelty and the potential for misuse of laws, efforts have been made to improve fairness and accountability in marital litigation.

One major area of reform has been regulating the use of Section 498A IPC (dowry harassment). After noting widespread complaints of arbitrary arrests, the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (2014) issued strict guidelines: police must verify allegations and issue a notice to the accused under CrPC 41A before making an arrest in 498A cases, and judicial magistrates must check compliance (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube) (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube). This was to prevent the routine jailing of husband and in-laws on filing of an FIR. Following this, many states instructed police to involve family counseling cells at Women Police Stations to attempt reconciliation or confirm cruelty before invoking criminal charges.

In Rajesh Sharma & Ors v. UP (2017), the Supreme Court went further, suggesting the creation of Family Welfare Committees (FWC) in each district to scrutinize every 498A complaint and report on its merits before the police proceed. The idea was to have a neutral body filter out frivolous cases (Section 498A anti-dowry law: Supreme Court modifies its 2017 order for family welfare committees) (Section 498A anti-dowry law: Supreme Court modifies its 2017 order for family welfare committees). However, this direction was controversial – it was seen as overstepping (introducing an extra-judicial layer not in CrPC) and potentially delaying justice for genuine victims. Consequently, in 2018, the Court modified this order, scrapping the mandatory FWCs (Section 498A anti-dowry law: Supreme Court modifies its 2017 order for family welfare committees) (Section 498A anti-dowry law: Supreme Court modifies its 2017 order for family welfare committees). Instead, it upheld the use of anticipatory bail and other existing mechanisms to protect the innocent. The net effect is that today, 498A remains non-bailable and non-compoundable by statute, but courts are quicker to grant bail to those falsely implicated (as reaffirmed in 2024 by Justices Nagarathna and Kotiswar’s judgment cautioning against roping in all relatives) (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases). The Law Commission and Parliamentary Committee reports have recommended making 498A compoundable with court permission (to allow couples to settle cases amicably), but this change is yet to be enacted.

To discourage false cases, the law does provide for prosecution of false complainants (Sections 182 or 211 IPC for false information/charges). In practice, though, these are rarely invoked in marital disputes, partly because courts fear it may deter genuine victims. The Supreme Court has on various occasions urged the legislature to consider amendments to curb misuse (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). Notably, in Preeti Gupta (2010) it asked for a “serious relook” at 498A (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube), and in a 2024 judgment (Achin Gupta vs State of Haryana), it again observed that the new penal code (BNS’s Sections 85-86 replacing 498A) should be revisited before implementation to incorporate safeguards (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). This indicates a continued push from the judiciary for balanced reform.

On the legislative side, apart from Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (which predates 498A and makes giving/taking dowry a crime), there haven’t been major new statutes targeting marital issues in recent years, except the ongoing attempt to overhaul the IPC (BNS 2023) which largely carries forward existing provisions. The Dowry Act itself has been criticized as toothless – enforcement is weak, and convictions are rare. The government often responds by citing data and conducting awareness campaigns ( Press Release:Press Information Bureau ) ( Press Release:Press Information Bureau ), but concrete legal tightening (like requiring mandatory declaration of wedding expenses or a cap on dowry) hasn’t happened. That said, one interesting proposal in the PIL after Atul’s case is to “record a list of articles/gifts/money given during the marriage, attached to the marriage registration” (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws). If adopted, such a measure could provide transparency and evidence in dowry disputes.

Regarding marital rape, the government formed the Justice Verma Committee after the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape case to reform sexual assault laws. That committee unequivocally recommended criminalizing marital rape. However, the subsequent Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 did not touch the marital rape exception, indicating executive and legislative reluctance. Instead, minor tweaks occurred via judiciary – e.g., Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court read down the exception to disallow sex with a wife aged 15–18 (aligning it with the age of consent at 18). More recently, facing petitions and a split Delhi HC verdict, the central government has sought public feedback on marital rape and stated it is a “complex issue” under consideration. As mentioned, the new BNS draft law still retains the exception (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law), reflecting no change as of now. It may eventually be the Supreme Court’s decision that forces a legal reform if Parliament doesn’t act.

Another significant legal reform area is divorce and family courts. India introduced the Family Courts Act, 1984 to set up specialized courts for matrimonial and child custody matters, aiming for a less formal, conciliatory approach. There are now family courts in most districts, which often mandate counseling/mediation at an early stage of divorce proceedings. The idea is to either reconcile the couple or facilitate an amicable split, especially focusing on arrangements for children. While not always successful, this has helped many couples reach mutual settlements without prolonged litigation. The Supreme Court itself has, in some cases, used its special powers to grant divorces on grounds of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” even though that’s not yet a ground in the Hindu Marriage Act – effectively pushing the law towards a more pragmatic stance when a marriage is clearly beyond repair.

To make divorce less acrimonious, amendments were proposed (and are pending) to include irretrievable breakdown as a formal ground and to streamline procedures (for example, doing away with the mandatory 6-month cooling-off period in mutual consent divorce in certain cases, which SC has allowed in specific instances). These measures, while not directly tied to the misuse of laws, address the broader challenge of easing the legal process of exiting a bad marriage, thereby reducing scope for vindictive criminal filings.

On the accountability front, courts have started awarding costs or penalties for frivolous litigation in family matters. There have been instances where a spouse filing repeated false complaints was chastised by the court with monetary fines or even warned of perjury. Such signals, though not very common, aim to deter abuse of legal process.

Summary of Reforms: In essence, the judicial and government response has been two-pronged – protect women’s rights while preventing misuse. Laws like PWDVA (2005) expanded protections (e.g., giving women the right to reside in the marital home, obtain protection orders, and monetary relief without a criminal trial). Simultaneously, Supreme Court decisions have read protections for innocent husbands into the procedure (bail, no automatic arrest, etc.). There is also an increasing acknowledgement of men’s issues: in 2023, the government informed Parliament that it is cognizant of false cases and considering steps to prevent them (for instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs advised states to follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines strictly in dowry cases). While no separate “men’s protection law” exists (a demand of men’s rights groups), these procedural safeguards act as de facto protection.

Finally, a promising area is the use of technology and data to improve accountability. Some have suggested maintaining a registry of false accusers or tracking 498A case outcomes to identify patterns (for example, if a woman files sequential cases against multiple people, that could flag scrutiny). Though such ideas raise privacy concerns, they reflect new ways the government could respond.

In conclusion, change is afoot, albeit slowly. The legal system is trying to calibrate itself: draconian misuse of protective laws is being tempered by judicial oversight, and egregious gaps like marital rape are under review. Continued reforms – possibly guided by expert committees as requested in the PIL (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) – are expected. The policy trajectory is toward a more gender-neutral enforcement of existing laws (without diluting their spirit), faster resolution of matrimonial disputes, and incorporation of global best practices (like no-fault divorce, marital rape criminalization, etc.) suited to Indian realities.

Support Infrastructure: Counseling, Legal Aid, and Helplines

Legal reforms alone cannot address marital crises; a robust support infrastructure is vital to help individuals and families in distress. In India, both government agencies and NGOs form a patchwork of support services for those facing marital problems, domestic violence, or family breakdown.

For women (wives), the support network is relatively well-developed:

• Women’s Helplines: A national 24×7 helpline “181” is in place for women in distress. This single number connects callers to crisis support in their state. Women can report domestic violence, seek rescue from abusive homes, or get referrals to counselors via this service. Additionally, police in many cities have dedicated women’s help numbers (like 1091) and rapid response teams for domestic violence calls.
• One-Stop Centres (OSCs): Since 2015, the Ministry of Women & Child Development has established One Stop Centres (also called Sakhi centres) in most districts (over 700 centers as of 2023) (700 One Stop Centres set up across the country: Irani – The Hindu). These OSCs provide integrated assistance to women facing violence – including immediate medical aid, psychological counseling, legal aid, temporary shelter, and help in filing police reports. For example, the OSC in Lucknow handled 1,600 cases of violence against women in one year, 612 of which were domestic violence, and it provides rehabilitation and even vocational training to abuse survivors (612 domestic violence cases reported to One-Stop Centre in a year – Hindustan Times) (612 domestic violence cases reported to One-Stop Centre in a year – Hindustan Times). OSCs coordinate with police and hospitals; they even have DLSA (District Legal Services Authority) lawyers to give legal advice and assist in court matters (612 domestic violence cases reported to One-Stop Centre in a year – Hindustan Times).
• National/State Commissions for Women: The National Commission for Women (NCW) and its state counterparts act as watchdogs and grievance redressal bodies. They regularly receive complaints of dowry harassment, domestic violence, harassment by husbands, etc. NCW often takes up such complaints with local authorities or even conducts inquiries. They also run awareness programs and legal camps.
• Family Counseling Centers: Often run by state social welfare departments or NGOs with government grants, these centers provide counseling to couples/families. Many police stations (especially women’s police stations or Mahila Thanas) have attached counselors. The goal is to mediate disputes before they escalate legally. Counselors are trained to handle emotional issues, advise on legal rights, and sometimes just provide a safe space to talk.
• Shelters and Short-Stay Homes: Women who need to leave their matrimonial home due to violence can seek refuge in shelter homes (Nari Niketans, etc.) which provide food and lodging, usually on a short-term basis. There are also NGO-run shelters specifically for domestic abuse survivors where they can stay with children. The government’s Swadhar and Ujjawala schemes fund many such shelters.
• Legal Aid: Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, women (irrespective of income in many states) are entitled to free legal aid because they are considered a vulnerable group. Legal aid cells attached to court complexes or run through NGOs provide free lawyers to women who can’t afford one. This is crucial in fighting cases of maintenance, custody, or violence. Some states even have exclusive courts or fast-track courts for cases like domestic violence, dowry, etc., to expedite justice.
• NGOs: A plethora of NGOs across India work on women’s rights and domestic violence – e.g., SEWA, Jagori, SNEHA, and many localized organizations. They offer counseling, legal advocacy, even escort services to accompany women to police or court. NGOs also do community interventions, like educating women about their rights and training police on gender sensitivity.

For men (husbands), the formal support system is far more nascent. Traditionally, it was assumed men don’t need support in marital issues. However, with rising awareness of men’s mental health and issues like false cases, some support has emerged:

• Men’s Helplines: Perhaps the most notable development is the creation of private helplines for men. One example is the SIF One helpline (number 8882-498-498) run by the Save Indian Family network of 40+ NGOs. Between Nov 2022 and Oct 2023, this helpline received over 50,000 calls from men in distress across India (India’s only helpline for men in distress gets over 50,000 calls this year | Chandigarh News – The Indian Express). Callers ranged from husbands facing false dowry or DV cases, men suffering domestic violence (from wife or in-laws), to those dealing with breakup stress. The helpline is manned by volunteers who provide a listening ear, peer counseling, basic legal guidance, and referral to local support meetings (India’s only helpline for men in distress gets over 50,000 calls this year | Chandigarh News – The Indian Express) (India’s only helpline for men in distress gets over 50,000 calls this year | Chandigarh News – The Indian Express). The existence of such helplines – and their heavy use – signals that many men experience crises that they cannot discuss openly elsewhere.
• Men’s Rights NGOs: Organizations like Men Welfare Trust, Save Family Foundation, etc., in different cities host weekly support group meetings. In these, men share their experiences and strategies (for legal defense, handling emotional turmoil, etc.). They also advocate for men’s issues legally (for instance, filing PILs on men’s behalf). While not government-supported, they fill a gap by giving men a community and voice. Their approach is often criticized by women’s groups for being too antagonistic, but for the individual men attending, it can be life-saving to know they aren’t alone and to get guidance.
• Legal Aid for Men: Men are not categorically entitled to free legal aid unless they qualify by income (usually very low-income or other criteria). This means many men, especially middle-class men fighting multiple cases, face financial strain affording lawyers. Some NGOs have empaneled pro-bono lawyers or advise men on representing themselves (party-in-person) if needed. There is a conversation about extending legal aid to men in certain cases (for example, an elderly father dragged into a false dowry case might get legal aid as a senior citizen).
• Psychological Counseling: This is an area that is only starting to be addressed. A few counseling centers have begun focusing on men’s mental health in family disputes. Also, some family courts now have counselors available not just for women but for any party who needs it. However, societal stigma still makes it hard for men to seek therapy. Initiatives like the central government’s MANAS app (for mental health) or private mental health helplines (like iCall) are gender-neutral and do get users who are men facing domestic issues, but there’s no dedicated government mental health program for distressed husbands.

For children, support infrastructure is minimal but improving:

• Family courts often have Mediators and Child Counselors who try to ensure children’s needs are kept central in divorce/custody cases. In some cases, judges do in-camera interactions with children to understand their wishes.
• Government schemes like Childline 1098 (a 24×7 emergency helpline for children) can intervene if a child is in a abusive home or needs help, which might indirectly address cases of extreme marital disharmony affecting kids.
• Some NGOs provide therapy for children who have witnessed domestic violence. For instance, organizations working in the child welfare space, or women’s shelters, sometimes run special sessions for kids to process what they’ve seen.

Community and Religious Bodies: In India, a lot of dispute resolution and support also happens informally via community or religious institutions. Many communities have councils or elders who mediate marital disputes (with varying degrees of success and fairness). While not officially part of “infrastructure,” they play a role, especially in rural areas. Similarly, religious bodies (like church counselors for Christian couples, or neighborhood imam/maulvi for Muslim couples) sometimes counsel on marital issues within their community.

Education and Awareness: The government, along with NGOs, conducts awareness campaigns about domestic violence (e.g., declaring November 25 as International Day for Elimination of Violence Against Women, with widespread outreach). There are also premarital counseling initiatives in some cities by NGOs or even some enlightened local governments (Kerala has experimented with premarital counseling requirements for couples). These initiatives aim to prevent problems or encourage people to seek help early.

In summary, India’s support system for marital issues is a patchwork – fairly strong for women facing violence (though implementation can be uneven), and emerging for men. The existence of institutions like One-Stop Centers and helplines shows recognition that legal solutions must be complemented by practical support: emotional counseling, guidance, and rehabilitation. As we move forward, strengthening these infrastructures – training more counselors, expanding legal aid, establishing perhaps a neutral family distress helpline accessible to all genders, and integrating mental health services with legal services – will be key to mitigating the human impact of marital conflicts. The government’s role is crucial in funding and expanding these services, while civil society continues to innovate at the grassroots level.

Alternatives to Traditional Marriage

Living Alone and Live-in Relationships

In recent years, more Indians are exploring alternatives to the traditional marriage setup, influenced by changing social values, economic independence, and global cultural exposure. Two notable trends are an increase in people remaining unmarried by choice and the rise of live-in relationships (cohabitation without marriage).

Living Alone (Staying Unmarried): For generations, marriage has been seen as almost compulsory in Indian society, usually expected by one’s late 20s. However, urbanization and career-focused lifestyles have led to a visible number of men and women in their 30s (and beyond) who are single by choice. Some are prioritizing education and careers, delaying marriage indefinitely. Others have seen the marital strife in their own families or peers (such as messy divorces or the pressures of joint families) and are hesitant to marry. The economic ability to live independently (especially for women who work and are no longer financially dependent on a husband or father) empowers this choice. Psychologically, living alone offers freedom and privacy that traditional marriage might constrain – one can make life decisions unilaterally, pursue hobbies, socialize freely, and avoid marital role expectations. This is attractive to many who value personal growth and mental peace over the social tag of marriage.

That said, choosing to remain single in India often comes with social pressures and loneliness challenges. Unmarried individuals, particularly women, may face intrusive questions or stigma (being labeled “picky” or “career-oriented” as if it were negative). Family pressure can be immense – parents might feel it’s their duty to see their child “settled” in marriage. Over time, acceptance is growing; role models of happily unmarried public figures and portrayal in media (films, web series) have made singlehood seem more normal. Single living also raises questions of who will care in old age – a role traditionally fulfilled by spouses or children – but increasingly, this is being addressed by financial planning and alternative support networks. India is also seeing the advent of solo living communities or assisted living for elders which could support those who never married or are divorced/widowed without children.

Live-in Relationships: Live-in relationships, where an unmarried couple cohabits in a relationship akin to marriage, have become more common in metropolitan areas and among younger demographics. This marks a significant social shift – even two decades ago, it was rare and frowned upon. Today, many young couples see live-ins as a way to test compatibility before committing to marriage. It can also be a preferred arrangement for those who doubt the institution of marriage itself but still want companionship. Bollywood and popular culture reflect this change (with multiple films depicting live-in couples, helping reduce stigma).

Legally, India does not have a specific “cohabitation law,” but the judiciary has extended certain protections. The Supreme Court has stated that live-in relationships are not illegal; adults have a right to live together even outside wedlock, and doing so falls under the right to life/personal liberty (Article 21). It has even observed that a long-duration live-in can give rise to a presumption of marriage unless proved otherwise (Rights of women in live in relationships in India : r/LegalAdviceIndia). Crucially, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 includes within its ambit relationships “in the nature of marriage.” Courts have interpreted this to mean that a woman in a live-in relationship can seek protection orders, maintenance, and other relief if she is abused by her partner, similar to a wife’s rights (Rights of women in live in relationships in India : r/LegalAdviceIndia). In Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court clarified factors that would make a live-in sufficiently “marriage-like” – like duration of cohabitation, pooling of resources, having children, social presentation as a couple, etc. If those are met, the woman is entitled to relief under DV Act (Rights of women in live in relationships in India : r/LegalAdviceIndia). There have been cases where maintenance (financial support) is granted to a partner after a breakup, treating the couple as de facto husband and wife (Rights of women in live in relationships in India : r/LegalAdviceIndia). However, not all live-ins qualify – e.g. a short-term or casual live-in might not be recognized, and if one party is already married to someone else, the live-in partner doesn’t get legal status (as clarified in Velusamy v. Patchaiammal (2010)).

Live-in couples also lack many legal benefits that married couples have. For instance, there are no automatic inheritance rights or spousal pension rights for partners. They can mitigate some of this by naming each other in wills or as nominees in insurance/bank accounts. Another challenge is when live-in relationships end: there’s no formal divorce process, which is both a relief (simpler separation) and a disadvantage (one partner might be left without any legal remedy if, say, they sacrificed career to support the other). For example, if a woman has been in a long live-in and the relationship ends, she cannot invoke divorce alimony laws, but she might claim palimony (maintenance via civil suit) or DV Act relief if applicable. This legal ambiguity means partners need to be extra clear in understanding their arrangement.

The social acceptance of live-ins is mixed. In big cities, it’s not uncommon among the educated young. Parents in urban middle-class families are gradually more tolerant if the couple intends to marry later. Still, in conservative circles, a live-in is scandalous and often kept secret. Small towns and rural areas largely disapprove of cohabitation before marriage, and couples have even faced violence or social boycott in extreme cases. There have been instances where neighbors or relatives file complaints of “immoral behavior” – though courts have thrown those out, such harassment reflects lingering societal resistance.

Psychological Implications: Live-in relationships often carry the same emotional weight as marriages – partners share lives and routines. The lack of a formal bond can psychologically make partners feel more free to leave, which can be both a pro and a con. Some couples report that knowing they are together by choice everyday (and not bound by law) pushes them to communicate better and work on the relationship, which is a healthy outcome. Others find the uncertainty stressful – one partner may fear abandonment since leaving is easier than divorce. Trust and expectations need to be managed just as in marriage.

One positive aspect is that live-ins allow couples to learn about compatibility in real-life settings – from finances to household chores to intimacy – before the huge social binding of marriage. In that sense, it can prevent incompatible marriages from happening in the first place (which could reduce divorce rates or unhappy marriages). On the other hand, there’s a saying that “exit option reduces voice” – if leaving is easy, some couples may not invest as much effort in resolving conflicts, possibly leading to break-ups that, in a marriage scenario, they might have worked through.

For society, more live-in relationships also raise questions about legal recognition. There have been debates on whether India should have something akin to a civil partnership or domestic partnership law, which grants cohabiting couples certain rights without marriage. No such law exists yet, but if the number of such unions grows, there may be pressure to provide a framework (this has parallels with the discussion on recognizing same-sex partnerships, where marriage isn’t legal but some form of civil union might be considered).

Non-Traditional Partnerships: Beyond heterosexual live-ins, some Indians are exploring other forms of partnership:

• Same-Sex Relationships: After the decriminalization of homosexuality (Section 377) in 2018, many LGBTQ couples live together openly. While they cannot legally marry in India as of 2025 (a matter sub judice in Supreme Court), these couples often form long-term cohabitations. They face the same legal void (no marriage rights), combined with additional societal prejudice, but in metros an emerging support network exists. Some companies even extend medical insurance or benefits to domestic partners irrespective of gender, recognizing such relationships.
• Open Marriages / Polyamory: This is extremely niche, but urban youth conversations have opened up to possibilities of consensual non-monogamy. It remains socially unacceptable to most, and not legally tested in India’s context (bigamy is illegal, but polyamory without marriage is a gray area). Psychologically, such arrangements require a lot of communication and are fraught with complexities given cultural conditioning of exclusivity.
• Commune Living or Group Living: A small trend of friends or like-minded individuals living together as a chosen family can be seen (for emotional support without romantic ties). For example, single seniors sometimes live together for companionship. While not “partnership” in a romantic sense, it’s an alternative social support setup diverging from the married-with-children norm.

In conclusion, alternatives to marriage are slowly carving a space in India’s social landscape, particularly in urban areas. Live-in relationships have gained a measure of legitimacy through court recognitions, reflecting legal adaptation to social change. The psychological outcome of these alternatives can be positive – offering personal freedom and compatibility testing – but they also come with a need for more communication and planning since the societal script is not as predefined as marriage. Over time, as these alternatives become more common, we may see further legal adjustments (perhaps a future where live-in partners can register their union for limited rights, etc.). Importantly, the rise of these trends indicates that many Indians are re-evaluating the idea that marriage is the only path to fulfillment, instead embracing a diversity of life choices that suit their individual needs.

Non-Traditional Partnerships and Their Implications

(This subheading overlaps somewhat with live-in relationships, but we’ll address a broader context including other arrangements.)

The phrase “non-traditional partnerships” includes any union deviating from the typical legally married heterosexual couple. We’ve covered cohabitation and staying single; here we touch on a few other paradigms and their implications:

• Same-Sex Partnerships: As mentioned, after homosexuality was decriminalized, there is a growing movement for recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions. While not yet legal, many same-sex couples function as a family unit. They face unique legal hurdles (no joint adoption in most cases, no spousal privilege, etc.) and societal challenges (lack of acceptance, though that’s improving in cosmopolitan circles). If India legalizes same-sex marriage or civil unions, that will formally expand the definition of marriage/partnership. Until then, these couples have to use legal tools like contracts, powers of attorney, and nomination forms to approximate marital rights.
• Second Marriages and Blended Families: Divorce, though less common in India than the West, is rising. Remarriage after divorce is also gradually shedding stigma. Blended families (where one or both partners bring children from previous marriages) introduce a non-traditional family structure that can face social and psychological challenges – acceptance by extended family, children adjusting to step-parents or step-siblings, etc. Legally, step-parents have fewer rights (e.g., a stepfather is not a natural guardian). The family has to navigate these, often by formal adoption of step-kids or simply by personal arrangements.
• Live-apart relationships (LAT): Some couples, even after marriage, choose to live separately (in different cities or homes) due to careers or personal preference but remain committed. This is somewhat non-traditional compared to the expectation that marriage means cohabitation. It can alleviate day-to-day friction and allow personal space, but requires trust and regular effort to maintain the bond across distance. It’s more common now with dual-career couples who may do weekday/weekend arrangements when jobs are in different locations.

From a psychological perspective, non-traditional setups often require breaking the mould of expectations, which can be empowering but also isolating without societal support. Individuals in such partnerships benefit from finding “their tribe” – like-minded people or communities that validate their choices (for example, online forums for unmarried women who’ve chosen to be single, or local meet-ups for LGBTQ partners, etc.).

Legally, India is inching towards recognizing some of these realities. For instance, the Supreme Court has granted inheritance to illegitimate children (which could cover kids from live-ins) to prevent them from destitution. It has also in some judgments said “family” can’t be narrowly defined only as a married man and woman with children – family could be unmarried cohabiting adults, single parent with child, etc., signaling an openness to broader definitions. These pronouncements will, over time, influence laws and policies (e.g., possibly allowing partner benefits in workplaces, insurance for domestic partners, etc.).

In summary, while traditional marriage is still the dominant institution in India, the landscape is slowly diversifying. Living alone, live-ins, and other non-traditional arrangements provide alternatives for those who seek different paths, and come with their own set of psychological comforts and challenges and a need for evolving legal frameworks. The increasing visibility of these alternatives itself contributes to the ongoing conversation on what “family” means in modern India, likely paving the way for more inclusive policies in the future.

Partner Selection and Compatibility

Assessing Compatibility Before Marriage

Given the high stakes of marriage, investing time and effort in choosing the right partner and ensuring compatibility can prevent many issues down the line. In India, marriages are a blend of individual choice and family involvement (even in “love marriages,” families often have a say). Here are some guidance points on assessing compatibility:

• Shared Values and Life Goals: It’s crucial for prospective partners to discuss their core values – attitudes towards money, career ambitions, views on gender roles, the importance of religion, expectations around children, and duties towards extended family (like whether one will live with or care for elderly parents). Alignment or respectful understanding in these areas is key. For instance, if one partner expects a traditional homemaker wife and the woman aspires to a full-time career, that’s a clash to address before marrying. Similarly, if one wants to eventually settle abroad and the other wants to live near their parents in India, that’s a significant life direction issue. It’s not necessary to agree on everything, but both should know each other’s stance and whether they can accommodate differences. Many marriages run into trouble because such fundamental conversations never happened in the courtship period.
• Communication Style and Conflict Resolution: How do both individuals handle arguments or stress? Do they communicate openly or shut down? Do small disagreements turn into big fights, or can they calmly resolve issues? It helps to observe each other in various situations – maybe while planning something together, or when one faces a setback at work – to gauge emotional temperament. Compatibility isn’t just having good times; it’s seeing if you can handle bad times together. If, for example, one partner has a temper that leads to yelling and the other is extremely sensitive to harsh words, they need to be aware and decide if they can adjust or work on it. Pre-marital counseling or workshops can equip couples with basic conflict resolution skills (active listening, empathy, finding compromise). Committing to a lifetime together means being prepared to confront challenges as a team.
• Personality and Habits: Daily life compatibility often comes down to lifestyle and habits. Is one an extrovert who loves social gatherings and the other an introvert who prefers quiet evenings? Does one keep a strict routine while the other is spontaneous? Such differences don’t mean incompatibility, but they require understanding and compromise. Prospective spouses should spend enough in-person time to see each other’s habits and routines. Something as simple as differences in cleanliness (a very tidy person vs. a messy one) can become a thorn later if not understood. Discuss hobbies, how each likes to spend weekends, attitudes towards health and fitness, etc. These contribute to long-term harmony.
• Expectations from Marriage: It’s beneficial to explicitly talk about what each person expects marriage to be. For example: How will finances be handled? Is the expectation to pool income or keep some independence? What are expectations about roles – should both work, or is one open to taking a break if kids come, and for how long? Views on intimacy and sex are also important but often not discussed openly in conservative settings; a frank but respectful dialogue about it can prevent future frustration. In essence, ensure both have a shared vision of the partnership: is it more traditional or equalitarian, career-focused or family-focused, adventurous or stable, etc.
• Family and Friends Compatibility: In India, one “marries the family” to a large extent. Observing how the prospective partner interacts with their own family and yours can be telling. Also, how the families get along matters. It’s wise to notice red flags: For instance, are the partner’s parents overly controlling or disrespectful? Is your partner able to set boundaries with them if needed? Similarly, gauge acceptance – does your family genuinely like and respect your would-be spouse and vice versa? While the couple’s bond is primary, constant friction with in-laws can strain a marriage. Compatibility extends to the ecosystem around you both.
• Discuss Deal-Breakers: Some issues can be deal-breakers if not aligned. These might include: whether or not to have children (and when, and how many), career sacrifices (would one be willing to relocate for the other’s job abroad?), any non-negotiable religious or cultural practices, and so on. Identifying these and confirming alignment is crucial. It’s better to confront a deal-breaker issue before marriage than discover it after. For example, one partner secretly expecting the other to convert religion, or one partner absolutely not wanting kids while the other does – such fundamentally opposing desires can doom a marriage if not addressed.
• Health and Lifestyle Transparency: Partners should share relevant health information – physical and mental. Hiding a serious health condition (like a chronic illness or infertility issues) can lead to betrayal feelings later. Similarly, mental health struggles (past depression, anxiety, etc.) should be conveyed so that the other person understands and is supportive. Nowadays, many also consider getting certain medical tests (fertility tests, genetic screenings, etc.) before marriage – these are personal choices but can be part of informed decision-making.

Ultimately, assessing compatibility is about knowing each other deeply beyond surface romance. Love is important, but so is liking and respecting the person’s individuality and being realistic about life together. Taking time (courtships or engagements that last at least several months, if not longer) is helpful. Some communities in India arrange for prospective couples to spend supervised time or exchange questionnaires about their views. In love marriages, the onus is on the individuals to probe these areas themselves.

Conducting Background Checks: Practical Advice and Ethics

In an age where meeting strangers through matrimonial websites or apps is common, due diligence on one’s prospective partner has become more important. Even in traditional arranged scenarios, families today often quietly verify the information presented. Here’s how individuals can approach background checks ethically:

• Openly Verify Key Details: It’s reasonable to ask for proof of crucial claims. For example, exchange and verify educational certificates, employment offer letters or salary slips, etc. A genuine person should not object to reasonable verification, since marriage is a huge commitment. If someone says they have a certain degree or job, offering a quick proof should be a non-issue. Similarly, if a man claims to own a house or a certain income, the woman’s side might politely verify those, and if a woman claims a certain qualification or family asset, the man’s side might verify – transparency should be mutual, not one-sided.
• Use Online Resources: A lot can be found via a simple online search. Social media profiles (Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, etc.) can give insight into a person’s lifestyle and friends circle. For example, LinkedIn can confirm employment history. Google search might show if the person has any newsworthy incidents (good or bad) associated with them, or even a court case record (some Indian court judgments are indexed by name – one might accidentally find a name in a judgment of divorce or criminal case; though names can be common, so careful there). There are also Government portals: one can check the MCA (Ministry of Corporate Affairs) site to see if the person is a director of any company (relevant if they claim to be a business owner), or use the EPFO portal (with their consent) to verify past employments. If the person has studied or worked abroad, verifying their visa/resident status can be important (there have been fraud cases where someone lied about being settled abroad).
• Social Vetting: In India, informal networks are powerful. Families often do discreet inquiries: e.g., asking someone in the prospective partner’s city or workplace about their reputation. If two families were connected via a matchmaker or relatives, they tap those networks. While effective, one must be cautious to avoid undue gossip or violating privacy. It’s wise to ask in a neutral way (like inquiring “oh, do you know X family? How are they?” rather than launching accusations). Many arrange marriage setups involve exchanging “biodata” and references – contacting a reference (like a family friend listed) to get a character sketch can be helpful.
• Professional Background Verification: There are detective agencies offering “premarital investigation” services. They can check for things like past marriages, affairs, criminal records, financial stability, etc. Ethically, hiring a PI without the person’s knowledge is debatable. However, in cases where there is a cause for suspicion (inconsistent stories, evasiveness on part of the prospective partner), some families do resort to it. If going this route, one should ensure the agency is reputable and operates within legal bounds (no hacking or stalking, ideally just observation and records search). For example, confirming if someone was indeed divorced if they claim so, or ensuring they aren’t already married to someone else (bigamy cases have happened), are legitimate concerns. In many Indian cities, these services are on the rise – but it’s crucial not to infringe on an innocent person’s dignity if there’s no strong reason to snoop.
• Financial and Legal Due Diligence: Marriage can have financial implications. It’s pragmatic to check if the prospective spouse has any heavy debts or liabilities. One could politely discuss financial planning and in the process ask about loans, etc. Or if one suspects, there are ways like looking at public financial records (e.g., property registration can be searched in some states’ land records to see if property claimed exists and in whose name). Checking for any criminal record is tricky – there’s no public criminal background check mechanism due to privacy (except for publicly available court judgments or FIRs). But one could search their name in the online FIR databases some states have. Again, caution: namesakes can mislead.
• Honesty and Consent: The most ethical approach is to encourage a climate of honesty where both partners volunteer verification and perhaps even agree to background checks openly. For example, both might exchange a police clearance certificate or CIBIL credit score if concerned about such things. Doing it with consent avoids the feeling of betrayal if the person finds out you investigated them behind their back. It’s good to communicate: “This is a big step for both of us; maybe we should both assure each other by sharing X documents or doing Y checks.” If both are on the same page, it builds trust rather than undermines it.
• Red Flags: Background checks can reveal red flags – e.g., discrepancies in what was told vs. found. If major lies are uncovered (say he said “I’m VP at a company” but is actually a junior staff, or she said “I have never been married” but evidence shows a past marriage), it’s a serious trust breach. Depending on severity, one might confront the person for an explanation or decide to call off the match. The key is to not ignore red flags due to social pressure or wedding momentum. It’s much harder to exit a marriage than to cancel a wedding.
• Privacy and Limits: Ethically, one must also recognize limits. Everyone has a right to some privacy. Stalking their ex-partners or reading personal messages/emails (if one somehow had access) would be unethical and violate trust. The goal is to verify critical information and guard against fraud or major incompatibilities, not to dig up every minor past incident or test the person’s virtue in an extreme way. Respect should be maintained – for instance, not publicly shaming the person if something is found, but handling it discretely between families.

In contemporary India, such due diligence is increasingly viewed not as paranoia but as common sense, given cases of matrimonial fraud or misrepresentation. When done respectfully, it can actually increase mutual confidence. Knowing that both parties have been transparent and vetted gives families peace of mind. As one matrimonial expert put it, “trust but verify.” It is an extension of the old practice of communities vouching for a person’s character – now adapted to the individualistic, digitally-connected world.

In sum, background checks are a practical step before marriage: verify identity, past, and present circumstances to the extent reasonable. When handled ethically – with permission where possible and with fairness – it protects individuals from entering marriages under false pretenses and ultimately contributes to the foundation of a honest relationship.

Historical Context

Evolution of Marriage, Dowry, and Gender Roles in Indian Society

To fully understand the challenges of contemporary Indian marriage, it helps to view how the institution has evolved historically. Marriage in India has never been a static concept; it has transformed with religion, region, and time period, influenced by socio-economic forces and legal reforms.

Ancient and Medieval Period: In ancient India (Vedic period and later), marriage was largely a social and religious duty. Among Hindus, the concept of marriage as a sacrament (saṁskāra) took root – an indissoluble union meant for procreation and joint performance of duties (dharma). Eight forms of marriage are described in Dharmashastra texts (e.g., Manusmriti), of which the approved ones did not involve exchange of money (the bride was “given” by her family with gifts like jewelry and clothes, but not sold) (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia). There was also the concept of swayamvara in some communities where a woman could choose her husband among assembled suitors, indicating that marriage norms varied widely from patriarchal arranged matches to semi-autonomous choices in certain contexts.

In terms of gender roles, ancient India had a paradoxical picture: goddesses and learned women were revered, and in some eras women like Gargi or Maitreyi were respected intellectuals, yet the average woman’s life was largely domestic. Key virtues of a wife were fidelity (pativrata) and service to husband. Husband was often equated to a deity for the wife, encapsulated in the later notion of “stri-dharma” (woman’s duty) to be devoted. Polygyny (especially among kings and higher classes) was accepted; polyandry was rare but existed in some communities (e.g., among certain groups in the Himalayas).

Dowry and Brideprice: Historically, both dowry and brideprice existed in India. In early Vedic times, a form of brideprice (“bridewealth”) called kanyashulkam was practiced – the groom’s side would give gifts or service to bride’s father (as seen in the epic Ramayana, where Rama breaks the bow to win Sita but also presumably would give something in exchange). Dowry (the bride’s family giving gifts) was often seen more as voluntary gifts to the couple or the groom’s family, not mandatory. Over time, especially in medieval period, dowry became more prevalent in high caste Hindus as a status symbol, whereas brideprice persisted in some lower castes and among some tribes. The Islamic era added its own marital customs: among Muslims, mehr (dower) is mandated – a groom gives a Mehr amount to the bride which is her exclusive property. Mehr is somewhat the inverse of dowry. However, in regions, cultural cross-influences led even many Muslim families to exchange dowry-like gifts.

Medieval to Colonial Gender Norms: In the late medieval era, with frequent wars and social upheavals, practices like child marriage and purdah (veiling/seclusion of women) became entrenched, aiming to protect girls from violence and preserve family honor. Unfortunately, this reduced women’s freedom. By marrying girls very young, often to much older men, society further curtailed women’s education and choice. Widowhood was extremely harsh – widows were expected to live in austerity if not perform sati (self-immolation on husband’s pyre) which, though not super common, did happen among some Rajput and higher classes and was glorified by some as the peak of wifely devotion. So, the position of women in marriage became quite subservient and restrictive by the time the British came.

The British colonial period (1757-1947) introduced modern concepts of law and individual rights, albeit slowly. The colonial government initially did not interfere with personal laws (marriage, inheritance, etc., were governed by community customs). However, social reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy and later Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar pressed for change. This led to laws like the Abolition of Sati (1829) and the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act (1856) – the latter legalized remarriage of widows which had been taboo. The Age of Consent Act (1891) raised the age of consent for brides to 12 (from a scandalous low of 10 years). These early reforms were met with resistance by orthodox factions but set a precedent that harmful marital customs could be curbed by law.

During British rule, India saw the introduction of civil marriage via the Special Marriage Act of 1872 (allowing inter-faith marriages under certain conditions, though initially limited) and more importantly, the introduction of judicial divorce in certain circumstances for Christian marriages (through the Indian Divorce Act, 1869). For Hindus, there was no divorce provision in classical law – marriage was till death (and even then, widows often could not remarry).

Post-Independence Legal Overhaul: After 1947, India moved to reform personal laws, especially for Hindus. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 made monogamy mandatory for Hindus (banning polygamy which was earlier permitted for men), introduced grounds for divorce (like cruelty, adultery, desertion, etc.), and allowed voluntary divorce by mutual consent (that came a bit later in 1976 amendment). This was revolutionary, essentially turning Hindu marriage from an indissoluble sacrament to a contractual union with exit clauses, albeit under certain conditions. The Act also outlawed caste restrictions legally and enabled intercaste marriages among Hindus. (Muslims and other religions continued under their own personal laws; for example, Muslim Personal Law allows polygamy and no formalized mechanism for wife-initiated divorce until laws like Khula and Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act 1939 came, but that’s another detailed topic.)

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was another post-independence reform, aiming to finally eradicate dowry. It wasn’t very effective initially, but it set the stage for later criminal provisions (498A, etc.). The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gave daughters equal inheritance rights in parental property (although with a big caveat for joint family property which was remedied only in 2005 amendment). This was meant to reduce the social dependence on dowry by giving women direct economic rights, though it took time to change mindsets.

Changing Gender Roles: From the mid-20th century onwards, the role of women in society gradually expanded. Education for girls improved, and more women entered the workforce. This economic empowerment started subtly shifting the dynamics within marriages – the husband was no longer the sole breadwinner in many urban families; decisions became more joint in nature when both spouses were educated. Still, the cultural lag was evident: working women often were expected to also bear the brunt of housework and childcare (the “double burden”), and the idea of the husband sharing house chores was slow to catch on.

Through the late 20th century, activism around domestic violence and women’s rights in marriage grew. This led to the aforementioned criminalization of cruelty (498A in 1983) and a wider conversation on marital rape (which, while not yet criminalized, became part of feminist discourse). The courts also responded with more gender-sensitive interpretations – e.g., recognizing marital cruelty can include mental cruelty and not just physical (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube), and considering extreme patriarchy or interference by in-laws as possible grounds for divorce (there are divorce judgments citing relentless taunting for dowry or forcing the wife to abort female fetuses as mental cruelty warranting divorce).

Contemporary Scene: Today’s marriages in India are a blend of old and new. Arranged marriages remain common (especially outside urban elite circles), but the nature of arrangement has changed – usually the individuals have more say, there is a “courtship” period, and could reject matches. Love marriages are on the rise, and inter-caste or inter-religious marriages, while still a minority, are more accepted especially among the educated young generation (helped by laws like Special Marriage Act that provide a civil route).

Joint family vs Nuclear family: Historically, a bride would move into the joint family of the husband. That still happens, but there’s an increasing trend of nuclear families post-marriage for reasons of privacy, jobs in different cities, etc. Living with in-laws can create friction due to generational differences and traditional expectations from the daughter-in-law; many modern couples avoid it if they can, which marks a change from earlier norms when it was almost mandatory for the eldest son to keep living with parents. However, the sense of duty towards one’s parents remains strong, and many marital arguments revolve around how much influence or support the extended family gets.

Divorce rates: Traditionally extremely low (divorce was stigmatized), divorce rates in India have crept up, though still much lower than Western countries. Urban areas see higher divorces; for instance, cities like Mumbai or Delhi have seen steady rises in filings. Reasons range from incompatibility to infidelity to the greater financial independence of women enabling them to leave unhappy marriages. Divorce becoming a bit more common also slightly reduces the stigma, though in conservative communities divorced persons (especially women) still face biases.

Marriage Age and Autonomy: The average age of marriage has increased (especially for women, from teens in mid-20th century to mid-20s or later now in cities). The government also recently (in 2021) amended the law to propose raising the minimum marriage age for women from 18 to 21 (to equal men’s) – reflecting a view that early marriage hinders women’s health and education. While child marriage is vastly reduced, it hasn’t vanished in rural belts.

Over history, the power dynamics in marriage have been shifting. Where once the husband was unassailable “lord and master” (patriarchy at its peak), today the ideal (in law and increasingly in urban culture) is that spouses are partners. The constitutional guarantee of equality is gradually permeating marital relationships. Yet, traditional gender norms still influence behavior in many households – women doing most housework, men expected to be primary earners, decisions like where to live or jobs sometimes prioritized for the husband’s career. So, one could say Indian marriages are in a transitional phase historically: from a patriarchal, community-controlled union towards a more egalitarian, individual-centric union – and the friction of this transition is evident in many of the challenges we see (dowry conflicts, domestic violence backlash, men feeling laws are now biased against them, etc., each reflecting adjustment pains in societal roles).

Dowry’s historical trajectory was discussed earlier; historically not universal, then becoming entrenched, now being challenged by law and slowly by society. Gender role evolution has accelerated in the last few decades: a sight unimaginable 50 years ago—like husbands jointly doing chores or women heading companies and expecting husbands to perhaps relocate for them—is now part of the social fabric, at least in some sections. Each generation in India is renegotiating marriage: our grandparents saw arranged child marriages and no divorce; our parents saw arranged adult marriages, some divorce; the current generation sees love marriages, equal partnership expectations, and more freedom to leave if unhappy.

In sum, the historical context shows that many of the “traditional” aspects we assume to be age-old (like rigid dowry, or complete female subservience) were not always exactly the same and thus can change. Marriage as an institution in India has proven resilient, adapting slowly to economic and ideological changes. The ongoing debates—be it about marital rape, or whether a wife should obey her in-laws, or whether a man can be a stay-at-home dad—are all part of this historical evolution towards aligning marital practices with modern principles of equity and personal fulfillment.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Policy Recommendations for Strengthening the Legal System

To address the multifaceted challenges in Indian marriages, a series of policy and legal reforms can be considered:

• Amend Laws to Deter Misuse: The legislature should introduce provisions to penalize false allegations in matrimonial cases without deterring genuine ones. For instance, a section could allow courts to order compensation or initiate proceedings against a complainant if a case is proven malafide (similar to how malicious prosecution is handled). This must be applied cautiously and only in clear cases to avoid chilling effects on true victims. Making Section 498A IPC compoundable (with court permission) would allow genuinely reconciled couples to withdraw cases, and reduce misuse as a bargaining tool (since once its purpose is served, it could be settled legally). This was recommended by the Law Commission and would require an amendment.
• Criminalize Marital Rape: From a rights perspective, India should move towards criminalizing marital rape, thereby removing the exception that violates women’s sexual autonomy. This would send a strong message that marriage is not a license to violate one’s spouse. Proper safeguards (as in any rape law) regarding proof and misuse can be implemented (for example, requiring a higher threshold of evidence such as physical harm or past history of abuse, to address concerns of false cases). Many countries’ experiences show that marital rape laws are largely used for egregious cases and not trivial matters, and India can draw on those frameworks. Even if not immediately via Parliament, the Supreme Court’s decision could pave the way by declaring the exception unconstitutional (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law) (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law).
• Specialized Family Justice System Improvements: The family court system should be expanded and strengthened. More family courts with trained judges (sensitized to gender issues) would ensure quicker disposal of cases. Mandatory mediation/counseling at the outset of disputes should be continued and enhanced – perhaps by having professional mediators in-court who are adept at handling high-conflict couples. If mediation fails, cases should be put on fast-track (especially those involving custody of children, where delays harm the child). Setting a reasonable time-frame for disposal of, say, divorce or 498A cases (like within 1-2 years) and monitoring courts on that metric could be introduced as policy.
• Recording Dowry at Marriage: As suggested in the PIL (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws), creating a mechanism to officially record the gifts/dowry exchanged during marriage could be very useful. For example, at the time of marriage registration, both sides can file a signed list of what was given voluntarily. This record can later be referred to in case of dispute: if a wife claims additional dowry was demanded, discrepancies can be examined. It won’t cover under-the-table demands, but it sets a baseline and makes families think twice before lying about transactions. The Dowry Prohibition Rules in some states already encourage lists of presents to be maintained – enforcing this nationwide and attaching it to registration could bring accountability.
• Men’s Commission or Cell: Consider establishing a National Commission for Men or at least a dedicated cell under the Ministry of Women & Child Development or Social Justice to look into men’s grievances in family disputes. This body could collect data on issues like male suicide, analyze misuse trends, and recommend remedies, analogous to how NCW takes up women’s issues. Even if not a full commission, a committee that periodically reviews laws from a gender-neutral standpoint might help ensure balance.
• Shared Parenting Laws: Update custody laws to better provide for joint custody or shared parenting arrangements post-divorce. Many fathers feel alienated by the current system which often grants sole custody to mothers by default. While each case differs, the law could be more explicit in favoring joint responsibility where feasible, as this is in the child’s best interest too. Fast adjudication of visitation rights and strict enforcement (with penalties if one parent wrongly withholds the child) would reduce using children as pawns.
• Counseling and Anger Management: Make counseling an integral part of legal process: e.g., courts could mandate anger management programs for spouses accused of domestic violence (in addition to or instead of punitive measures, depending on severity) which could rehabilitate behavior. Also, premarital counseling programs at community levels (maybe voluntary certification that couples can undergo a premarital counseling session covering legal rights, financial planning, etc.) could be popularized.
• Awareness and Training: Train police, judges, and prosecutors in gender sensitization AND sensitivity to misuse. Police often are the first point of contact – they should neither trivialize genuine complaints (as used to happen with domestic violence) nor unthinkingly arrest without verification (the flip side). Regular workshops referencing Supreme Court guidelines (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) and use of tools like standardized domestic incident reports, could professionalize how cases are handled. Similarly, judges in family courts should be trained in psychology of family dynamics, so they can distinguish between normal marital spats and true cruelty or manipulation.
• Strengthen Domestic Violence Act enforcement: The DV Act is civil, but its implementation can be patchy. Ensure every court has a Protection Officer (as mandated by the Act) to assist victims and follow up on orders. Also, expand the Act (or via rules) to allow emergency ex-parte orders in severe cases (some courts do it, but consistency nationwide is needed). Monitoring the execution of residence and protection orders will protect victims better and also show that the law is effective, negating arguments that false cases are rampant (if truly false, the case will falter at this stage).
• Data Collection and Research: The government should maintain and publish detailed statistics on marital litigation – number of 498A cases filed vs convicted, number of DV complaints and outcomes, average time to dispose, etc. and also data like causes of suicides with marital issues, etc. This data-driven approach will help make informed policy. For example, if a state shows abnormally high acquittal rates, it indicates misuse or poor investigation; if another shows high conviction, maybe things are working there.

Overall, the legal system improvements should aim for a fair, swift, and transparent process. Justice delayed is justice denied – this applies both to a wife awaiting protection and a husband falsely accused. Speed and fairness will reduce the acrimony. The focus should also be on saving marriages when possible (through counseling) and ensuring amicable exits when not (through mediation and mutual consent) rather than adversarial fights that destroy families.

Practical Insights for Individuals Considering Marriage

While systemic change is crucial, individuals too can take steps to safeguard their marital future and well-being:

• Make Informed Choices: As elaborated earlier, take time to know your partner deeply. Do not rush into marriage due to external pressure. It is perfectly alright to spend months or even a couple of years (if circumstances allow) in understanding compatibility before tying the knot. If it’s an arranged match with short interaction, insist on multiple meetings and candid conversations. It’s a lifelong commitment; due diligence is an act of responsibility to oneself.
• Set Clear Expectations Early: Once engaged or seriously involved, discuss the big life decisions – where to live, whether both will work, family involvement, financial management, etc. Align expectations so that you go into marriage as a team with a shared plan, not with hidden assumptions. This includes expectations around intimacy, kids, lifestyle. If families are heavily involved, also diplomatically communicate boundaries (for instance, a bride-to-be might express that she values a career and will continue working, to her future in-laws; a groom-to-be might clarify his responsibility to support his parents even after marriage, to his future wife – these mutual understandings prevent feelings of deception later).
• Financial and Legal Literacy: Individuals should educate themselves on their legal rights and duties in marriage. For example, a wife should know she has a right to residence in the marital home and potentially maintenance if she is not earning. A husband should know that harassing for dowry is a crime and also what the legal repercussions could be if a false case is filed (so he handles police/court correctly). Both should ideally discuss whether they want a pre-nuptial agreement (though not very common in India and of debatable enforceability, it’s an option especially for those with substantial pre-marriage assets or in second marriages). Also, planning finances jointly – like whether to have joint accounts, how to handle existing loans – should be done to avoid mistrust. Transparency in money matters goes a long way in avoiding conflicts that can escalate severely if left unmanaged.
• Communication is Key: Cultivate open communication habits from the start. Many conflicts arise from lack of communication or miscommunication. Being able to talk about feelings without undue fear is important. If you find communication very difficult during courtship (constant misunderstandings or inability to resolve small issues), consider premarital counseling – a professional can help improve this before marriage.
• Document and Save Evidence (Just in Case): This is a sensitive tip – one hopes never to use it – but given the possibility of legal disputes, it doesn’t hurt to maintain some records. For instance, keep a record of major exchanges like the dowry gift list or expenses you incurred (for both sides). Save communications (texts, emails) that are significant. If one ever faces false accusations, having civil, polite correspondence or evidence of being supportive can help refute lies. Conversely, if a spouse is abusive, maintaining a diary of incidents or keeping copies of threatening messages can later support your case. These are precautionary and should not dominate one’s mind (trust is fundamental), but being mindfully prepared is part of modern life. Many cases boil down to he-said/she-said – a little evidence can tilt the balance to truth.
• Leverage Support Systems: If trouble arises, do not hesitate to seek help early. Small disputes can snowball if ignored. Talk to trusted friends or family for perspective (but be careful to choose those who are objective and discreet, not gossipy). If facing mental stress, see a counselor – therapy is not taboo; it can provide coping strategies and clarity. If facing abuse, reach out to helplines (women can call 181 or approach an NGO; men can call men’s helplines (India’s only helpline for men in distress gets over 50,000 calls this year | Chandigarh News – The Indian Express)). Often, an external intervention can defuse situations before they become police or court cases. Culturally, couples often avoid airing issues, but sometimes a neutral third party (therapist, mediator, or even a respected family elder) can mediate a solution.
• Legal Steps When Necessary: If things take a turn for the worse – for instance, if one faces domestic violence or cruel treatment – know the options. Women should not hesitate to use the Domestic Violence Act for immediate relief (it’s quicker than 498A and not criminal; one can get a residence order, protection order, monetary relief fairly fast). Men, if facing threats of false cases, might consider approaching the court for anticipatory bail pre-emptively when a conflict is clearly escalating to that point. And if a marriage is truly unworkable, opting for a dignified mutual consent divorce is far better than dragging on in misery or resorting to vindictive tactics. It requires cooperation, but sometimes raising the topic amicably (perhaps suggesting a trial separation first) can lead to a mutual decision.
• Preserve Dignity and Empathy: In any marital conflict, try to preserve basic dignity. Avoid physical violence at all costs. Avoid verbal abuse or electronic communications that can later be used against you (or simply hurt the other deeply – harsh words leave scars). If you feel rage, step away and cool down. Couples should treat each other as partners, not adversaries – even if separating, a cooperative approach (especially if children are involved) will save both parties grief and resources.
• Stay Updated and Adaptable: Society is changing; be prepared to learn and adapt in your marriage. Maybe you assumed roles would be traditional but your spouse struggles in that role – then reconsider division of labor. Maybe a law changes (say marital rape becomes criminalized) – understand what that means for mutual consent in your intimacy. A good marriage often means growing together and sometimes unlearning inherited biases. Men might have to unlearn patriarchal reflexes; women might have to unlearn mistrust or dependency – it’s a journey.
• Foster Equal Partnership: Consciously work towards an equal partnership. This means sharing responsibilities, decision-making and giving each other respect. Small acts like both partners helping in household chores if both are working, or jointly making financial decisions, reinforce equality. An equal partnership is more resilient to societal pressures because both feel valued. It also reduces chances of one feeling exploited or the other feeling disrespected, which are common seeds of marital discord.

By keeping these insights in mind, individuals can not only protect themselves from worst-case scenarios but also actively build healthier marriages. Prevention is better than cure – many legal tangles can be avoided if the marriage itself is entered wisely and nurtured thoughtfully.

Comparative Perspective: India and Other Countries

The challenges facing marriage in India have parallels and contrasts with those in other countries, shaped by cultural and legal differences:

• Dowry vs. Brideprice vs. No Dowry: India’s dowry problem is quite unique and specific to South Asia (and some parts of Africa to a lesser extent). In Western countries, dowry is virtually non-existent today; in fact, often the reverse (parents of the bride and groom might jointly pay for the wedding, or just bless the couple). This means issues like dowry deaths or dowry harassment cases are an Indian (and Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nepali) phenomenon. Conversely, some cultures have brideprice (groom’s family pays bride’s family) – e.g., parts of Africa and the Middle East – which comes with its own problems but isn’t exactly the same power dynamic as dowry. Many countries consider any form of marriage transaction problematic; India outlawed dowry but enforcement lags. So, in this aspect, India differs markedly from Western nations where marital conflicts rarely involve in-law financial extortion. However, the underlying theme – marital economics causing conflict – exists elsewhere too, such as disputes over alimony or gold jewelry in Middle Eastern marriages, etc., but the lethal combination of dowry greed and joint family pressure is more an Indian subcontinent trait.
• Legal Protections for Women: Most developed countries have long-established laws against domestic violence and spousal rape. For example, the US, UK, Canada, etc. criminalize marital rape and have restraining order systems for domestic abuse. India is catching up on domestic violence through PWDVA (civil law) which is actually considered quite progressive in its breadth. But on marital rape, India is behind – one of ~30-50 countries with an exception (A Ruling on Marital Rape in India is Coming Up. Here’s Why You …) (Marital rape grave offence, illegal in many countries: Gujarat high court). Culturally too, Western women may have more autonomy to leave marriages earlier without stigma, whereas Indian women historically were expected to endure more, though this is changing. Interestingly, in some Middle Eastern countries, marital rape isn’t recognized either and women’s rights in marriage are behind India’s (e.g., needing guardian’s permission for marriage, etc.). So, India is ahead of some developing regions on women’s rights in marriage, but still behind the global norm when it comes to recognizing full equality (marital rape law, equal share in marital property – which many Western countries ensure via community property or equitable distribution in divorce, whereas Indian law doesn’t automatically give wife half the assets except as decided in alimony).
• Misuse of Laws and Men’s Issues: The theme of misuse of protective laws is not unique to India. For instance, in the U.S., there are debates about false accusations in divorce (like false allegations of child abuse to win custody, etc.), and there are men’s rights movements in many countries complaining of biased family courts. However, the scale and nature in India is different. The criminalization of cruelty (498A) is a relatively unique provision (most countries address domestic violence as a crime but not with a specific equivalent of 498A that jails in-laws too). Thus, the phenomenon of elderly in-laws getting arrested because of a marital tiff is something that is heard of in India, whereas in the West, in-laws usually are not part of the legal equation at all. The Indian joint family system means conflicts and consequently legal cases often envelop the extended family, which is a key difference. Men’s higher suicide rate is also seen in many countries (globally men have higher suicide rates), but Indian statistics of married men’s suicides being so high (Bengaluru techie case draws focus to ‘higher suicide rate’ among married men; here’s what data shows) stand out, likely reflecting stress of being the family provider and perhaps legal/financial pressures. Western countries too see male distress in divorces, but they have more institutional support for mental health. In India, the nascent men’s support movement is reminiscent of what happened in some Western nations in the ’80s and ’90s when divorce and domestic violence laws tightened and men organized for joint custody rights and such.
• Divorce Rates and Stigma: India’s divorce rate (~1% or so) is much lower than that of the U.S. (~40-50% of marriages) or Europe (varying 30-50%). This is partly due to social stigma and family structure differences. While one might think fewer divorces means stronger marriages, it can also mean more people stuck in bad marriages. Western societies largely accept divorce as a part of life; India is getting there slowly. Another difference: West has “no-fault divorce” (you don’t need to prove cruelty or blame; a marriage can end because it’s not working). India’s legal framework is still fault-based (except mutual consent). This makes Indian divorces more acrimonious by design (someone has to be labeled the wrongdoer unless both agree amicably). Many countries have shifted to no-fault to reduce acrimony – India could consider that shift to mirror the West, which would reduce need for false allegations just to get a divorce.
• Child Custody: In Western jurisdictions, joint custody is common and often the default expectation. Courts encourage co-parenting unless a parent is unfit. In India, joint custody is legally possible but not commonly awarded; mothers get primary custody in young children cases usually, with visitation to fathers. This is slowly changing in metros, but India can learn from the West in codifying shared parenting norms. On the other hand, India’s extended families often remain involved in children’s lives post-divorce, which can be a support system Western single parents lack (or conversely, a source of conflict if grandparents interfere).
• Alternate Relationships: Western countries generally have higher acceptance of cohabitation, and many have legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions. India is culturally more conservative, but slowly showing some of these patterns in metros. The idea of never marrying and just living together is common in Europe (with legal recognition in some places after a period of cohabitation, like “common law marriage” concepts). In India, live-in relationships are just gaining legal acknowledgment and still socially controversial. Similarly, in East Asian countries like Japan and South Korea, marriage rates are falling and singlehood is rising (for different reasons like work culture, etc.). India might mirror some of those trends as well if current urban attitudes continue.
• Elder Care and Marriage: One reason Indian men (and women) endure marriages is the social expectation of care in old age. Western countries have state or community systems (retirement homes, state pensions, etc.) and a culture where children aren’t as obligated to care for parents, so marriage is more about the couple themselves. In India, marriage is entangled with duties towards the extended family. This difference often means marital conflicts in India can involve issues like sending money to in-laws, etc., which in the West is rarely a factor. This can make Indian marriages more complex in stakeholder management, so to speak.
• Domestic Violence: Sadly, domestic violence is universal. The difference is in response. Western nations have long had shelters and hotlines, and police are quick to issue restraining orders; India is building that infrastructure now (e.g., OSCs). One contrast: in some Western jurisdictions, a single credible incident of domestic violence can heavily swing divorce settlements (like bar the abuser from getting custody, etc.), whereas in India it might be acknowledged but not as decisively punitive in civil outcomes (though 498A punishes criminally). This may change as awareness grows.
• Men’s Role Transformation: In Western societies, the role of husbands has evolved with more equitable norms – it’s common and expected for husbands to share chores, take paternity leave, etc. In urban India, this is evolving but many households still see domestic work as the wife’s domain. How couples navigate these roles is part of compatibility and conflict. The West’s experience shows that when women work outside, men eventually take more housework – India is in earlier stages of that shift. This transitional phase can cause friction (the “second shift” problem for women).

In essence, Indian marital issues both mirror and diverge from global patterns. Themes of gender equality, balancing work and family, and addressing domestic violence are common worldwide. However, India’s context of joint families, dowry, slower acceptance of divorce, and nascent legal frameworks for some issues (like marital rape, shared custody) make its situation distinct. By looking at other countries, India can glean solutions (e.g., no-fault divorce to reduce litigation bitterness, joint custody laws, better implementation of restraining orders). Conversely, Indian society’s strong family bonds also provide a support mechanism that many Western individuals lack, which is a strength if leveraged positively (e.g., grandparents helping raise kids can ease a couple’s stress).

In conclusion, improving India’s marital landscape will require both legal reform and social change. Policies should aim to protect the vulnerable (mostly women and children) while also ensuring justice and support for others involved (including men and in-laws). Socially, promoting a culture of equality, communication, and mutual respect in marriage – learning from best practices elsewhere – can reduce conflict and litigation. For individuals, awareness and proactive efforts as discussed can lead to healthier marriages. India’s marriages are at a crossroads of tradition and modernity; handling this transition with careful reforms and empathy will determine whether the institution of marriage emerges stronger and more equitable in the years to come.

Sources:

• Supreme Court observations on misuse of Section 498A and need for caution (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube)
• NCRB statistics on 498A cases, acquittals, and false reports (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem)
• Supreme Court judgment calling misuse of 498A “legal terrorism” (Misuse of Section-498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ylcube)
• Data on married men vs women suicide rates (NCRB 2022: 83,713 vs 30,771) (Bengaluru techie case draws focus to ‘higher suicide rate’ among married men; here’s what data shows) (Bengaluru techie case draws focus to ‘higher suicide rate’ among married men; here’s what data shows)
• The Print, “Who Killed Atul Subhash?” – detailing his suicide note and misuse of laws debate (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem) (Atul Subhash case: Marriage laws & a rotten ecosystem)
• NDTV report on SC remarks amid Atul’s case, noting tendency to implicate all in-laws and need to nip false cases (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases) (Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker, Supreme Court’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases)
• ANI/NDTV report on PIL seeking dowry law reform post-Atul, quoting petition about false cases becoming weapons (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws)
• Indian Express report on men’s helpline getting 50k calls, indicating men’s distress in relationships (India’s only helpline for men in distress gets over 50,000 calls this year | Chandigarh News – The Indian Express) (India’s only helpline for men in distress gets over 50,000 calls this year | Chandigarh News – The Indian Express)
• Supreme Court Observer summary of marital rape case – Delhi HC split verdict and ongoing challenge (Challenge to the Marital Rape Exception – Supreme Court Observer) (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law)
• Indian Express research on marital rape worldwide (150 countries criminalized as of 2019) (A history of the movement to criminalise marital rape across the world | Research News – The Indian Express)
• PIB data on dowry deaths (~7000/year) and dowry cases ( Press Release:Press Information Bureau )
• Hindustan Times report on One Stop Center assisting 1600 women in a year (Lucknow) (612 domestic violence cases reported to One-Stop Centre in a year – Hindustan Times) (612 domestic violence cases reported to One-Stop Centre in a year – Hindustan Times)
• Reddit summary of SC judgments on live-in relationships (rights to maintenance, etc.) (Rights of women in live in relationships in India : r/LegalAdviceIndia) (Rights of women in live in relationships in India : r/LegalAdviceIndia)
• Moneycontrol article on higher suicide rate among married men, confirming data and reasons (Bengaluru techie case draws focus to ‘higher suicide rate’ among married men; here’s what data shows) (Bengaluru techie case draws focus to ‘higher suicide rate’ among married men; here’s what data shows)
• The Print and NDTV coverage of Prasanna Sankar case – false rape and DV cases vs. wife’s allegations (Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankar on run, claims harassment in Divorce case in a long viral post on Twitter – The Times of India) (Rippling co-founder’s wife says son ‘kidnapped’ by ‘sexual pervert’ husband | Latest News India – Hindustan Times)
• Michael Witzel & historical accounts of dowry not being widespread in antiquity (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia) (Dowry system in India – Wikipedia)
• NCW/PIL statements on how false dowry cases also harm genuine victims by casting suspicion (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws) (Plea In Supreme Court Calls For Reform In Dowry And Domestic Violence Laws)
• Derek O’Brien’s statement on marital rape exception being archaic and violative of rights (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law) (“Shows Woman’s Consent Irrelevant”: Derek O’Brien On Marital Rape Exception In Law)

This comprehensive analysis demonstrates that marriage in India is at once revered and beleaguered – an institution in flux. Legal frameworks are striving to catch up with social realities, and individuals are negotiating new marital equations. By addressing the legal loopholes and excesses, supporting those in distress, and encouraging informed, egalitarian partnerships, India can mitigate the crises in marriage without dismantling the institution itself. The ultimate goal is that marriages – for those who choose them – become a source of mutual growth and happiness, not hardship or harm. The solutions lie in tempering justice with empathy: strengthening laws to protect rights, while cultivating a society where marriages are founded on consent, respect, and true partnership.