Loopholes in Domestic Violence Law

Women are saying that Domestic Violence Bill is introduced “Only” to protect women from domestic violence. But after knowing the loopholes, you would say that this indeed is a monumental decision, not because it will protect women, but because it violates men’s rights on an astronomical level. You got to read it to believe it.   

Aggrieved Person is only a woman. A man can never be a victim of domestic violence, which is an absolutely incorrect assumption. If they really like to protect the victim from domestic violence, then why a man can’t complain against his wife when he is a victim of domestic violence? This clearly exposes their intentions to “let men suffer.” And their malicious intentions are disclosed by Renuka Chaudhury, Minister of Women and Child Development and the executor of this bill, who said on national television, “It is men’s turn to suffer.” Well, she is absolutely right; it is men’s turn to suffer now. Just read this bill and decide.  

Here are some loopholes.  

Monetary relief means the compensation which the Magistrate may order the husband/man to pay to the woman, at any stage (any stage meaning?) to meet the expenses incurred and the losses suffered by the woman as a result of domestic violence. (How will the Magistrate assess the amount of expenses incurred and loss suffered by the woman? Maybe there was no expense incurred or loss suffered at all but she can still demand any exorbitant price from the husband/man. Who will not take advantage of the situation where she is given the “so-called rights” to make any demands as she wishes?) 

Shared household means a household where the woman lived or at any stage (at any stage? That means a woman can complain against a man even after the relationship has ended. Now this is a weapon to take revenge) has lived in a domestic relationship either singly (singly meaning?) or along with the husband/man (singly or along with the husband/man? If she has lived singly then how did they lived in a domestic relationship, and if thed lived then how did they shared their household?)and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest (interest? Legal title is understandable. What about interest? This is clearly encouraging women to demand anything they like that is possessed by the man legally. All they need is an ‘interest’ in the property of the man, and the law will take care of it, and there goes the property from the hands of the man to the woman) in the shared household.  

Forms of Domestic Violence definitions(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being(well-being? This is a very vague term and is open to numerous interpretations), whether mental (how would you prove a mental harassment. A woman can get mentally upset on a big issue or a trivial mundane issue. The scope of misuse here is endless) or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a  view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry (when we already have anti-dowry law, then why are they duplicating here) or other property or valuable security; or (why have they categorically mentioned ‘other property or valuable security’?)
(c) has the effect of threatening (how would you prove threatening) the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person (this is repeated again, it has already mention in the first point). 

Explanation(i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or  health or impair the health or development (‘development’ is an equivocal term open to any sort of interpretation) of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman (define ‘dignity’. Dignity is unrelated to the gender of a person. It is overall character, noble qualities and moral values of a person that makes a person dignified. Generalizing that all women are dignified is incorrect and unjustifiable);
(iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” (verbally, women are much more vicious than men) includes- (a) insults, ridicule (define ridicule), humiliation, name calling (there is endless scope of misuse in ‘name-calling’) and insults or ridicule (which woman has never ever humiliated, ridiculed and insulted a man? There are so many women who have humiliated the man by calling him ‘napoonsak’, meaning impotent. Why is this not an emotional abuse to men?) specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.(interested? What is this mean? The aggrieved person could be interested in anybody, boyfriend, lover. That means the man should do nothing to the boyfriend/lover of the woman, just keep quiet and let her enjoy adultery) (iv) “economic abuse” includes- (a) deprivation of all or any (define ‘any’) economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom (custom?  What is a custom? There are thousands of different customs in the country) whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to(not limited to? What is this mean? Something beyond necessity? That is luxury), household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children (her children? “Her”. Did she give birth to a child without the help of a man? Can a woman produce sperms on her own?), if any, stridhan, property, jointly (jointly?) or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation (what is ‘any’ alienation?) of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest (interest? What is this mean? This means that the assets moveable or immoveable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property may not be in her name but if she has some “interest” (who will not have ‘interest’ in money?) she has the right to possess it legally) or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or (or?) which may be reasonably required (reasonably required meaning?) by the aggrieved person or her children (again ‘her’ children?) or her stridhan or any other property jointly (jointly? If the man possesses the property but the title is jointly shared, still the property, wholly and solely, belongs to the woman. only) or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy (enjoy? She may like to enjoy anything. Her demands could be anything from a handkerchief to a sports car) by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.  

The Central Government and State Government officers including the police officers and the members of the judicial services are given periodic sensitization (forcing them to be sensitive toward a woman complaint even if they appear to be false and fabricated, and arrest the accused immediately, or else face the wrath of women organizations) and awareness training on the issues addressed by this Act;  

Assistance of welfare expert:
In any proceeding under this Act, the Magistrate may secure the  services of such person, preferably a woman(why only a woman? A woman will invariably favour the other woman only, instead of looking into the issue practically), whether related to the aggrieved person or not (related? This is bias and will only make the false case of a woman stronger) , including a person engaged in promoting family welfare as he thinks fit, for the purpose of assisting him in discharging his functions 

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman (every?) in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right (she doesn’t have any right but she has the right), title or beneficial interest in the same (Doesn’t matter if she has no right or title to the property, but she has the power to kick the man out of the house legally)  

The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household (that means even if the live-in relationship ends, the man has to gift his own house to the woman or else be convicted of domestic violence) or any part of it (any part of it?) by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law 

The Magistrate may, after giving the aggrieved person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place, pass a protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibit the respondent from-
(a) committing any act of domestic violence;
(b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence;
(c) entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person (workplace?) or, of the person aggrieved is a child, its school or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person;
(d) attempting to communicate in any form, whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact (that means after the complaint is made, the man has no rights to communicate with the woman. Women groups were babbling that this law will not break families. How obvious!);
(e) alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed (enjoyed? Women love to enjoy like a freeloader) by both the parties, jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent (singly also? The assets, bank lockers or bank accounts singly possessed by the man, actually belongs to the woman), including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate;
(f) causing violence to the dependants, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence;
(g) committing any other act as specified in the protection order.. 

Residence orders:
(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order -
(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person (who will declare that the possession belongs to the woman?) from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal (even if the man has a legal title on his possession, he has no right over his own possession) or equitable interest (interests of women is take care of, not the interest of men) in the shared household;
(b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household; (that means even if the house belongs to the man, he can still be kicked out of the house legally by the woman and then the house will be in the possession of the woman legally)
(c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides; (the family members of the man is not allowed to live together or even visit the house if the woman does not like it. This is the dream of all women so that she can easily control the life of the man. Women groups aren’t saying that this law will deprive men of their own family love)
(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same; (even if the house or part of the house belongs to the man, he has no right to dispose it off because it actually belongs to the woman. Men possesses nothing, absolutely nothing)
(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights (rights? This bill has left men with no rights, how will he renounce his rights when he has no rights left?) in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or
(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed (enjoyed? Women just wanna have fun at the cost of a man’s life) by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require: (that means even after the relationship (marriage or live-in) ends, the man has to give an alternate accommodation or pay rent so that the woman continues to enjoy her life even after the man goes bankrupt. This is good way to buy a house. Get married or get into a live-in relationship and break-up; the law will force the man to gift a new house to the woman)  

Custody orders:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Magistrate may, at any stage of hearing of the  application for protection order or for any other relief under this Act grant temporary custody of any child or children to the
aggrieved person or the person making an application on her behalf and specify, if necessary, (if necessary? What does this mean?) the arrangements for visit of such child or children by the respondent: Provided that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that any visit of the respondent may be harmful to the interests of the child or children (yes, men are worse than animals who can hurt their own child), the Magistrate shall refuse to allow such visit.

Compensation orders:
In addition to other reliefs as may be granted under this Act, the  Magistrate may on an application being made by the aggrieved person, pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional
distress,(now there have established a monetary price to mental torture and emotional distress. This monetary price will extend to the man’s insolvency. Get married or get into a live-in relationship and complain of domestic violence and get very rich) caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by that respondent, 

Upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of section 31 has been committed by the accused. (The man has no right to prove himself innocent. Any false testimony of the woman is considered true and genuine, by default. Women groups say that this law will not be misused. What a joke!)  

Now let us ask this question again. Is Domestic Violence Bill will “Only” protect women from domestic violence? No. This bill is impressively drafted to legally terrorize, blackmail, control, and ruin a man in the name of protective laws for women. The agenda of protecting women is so blown out of proportion that apparently nobody is realizing that in this process, men’s constitutional rights are getting violated in extreme. It seems that women’s group too couldn’t believe it when the bill got passed in the parliament because only a moron could not see what this bill is all about. Women groups drafted this bill with extreme care and thought that they should give it a try to get it approved. And it got approved.   

Would you marry or allow anybody to marry a woman when such laws are available with the woman? It is suicidal.

Renuka Chaudhury’s argument on DV Act

Renuka dismissed the criticism that the new Domestic Violence law was to harsh on men. She is determined to destroy the Indian families. According to the poll conducted by Times of India, 87% people believe innocent men will suffer.  

Here are some of her arguments.    

“Women live in dangerously self-embracing situations. Even if you see it as a ferocity in the Act or the ambit is too wide, please understand that women are burnt to death, beaten insensitivity” 

Do you have a statistical proof that women are living in dangerously self-embracing situation? It is your own views and you don’t have constitutional rights to make laws on the basis of your self-opinionated perception. As far as women are burnt issues are concerned, we already have IPC 498A. Your arguments are lame and unjustified.   

“There’s always need for corrections and amendments in any law as we progress, as a society develops and the need arise. But for what? Hypothetically, before we reach the bridge and cross it if you want me to make amendments, I wont.” 

You have crossed all boundaries of sanity. You don’t even know what you are talking about. IPC 498A is misused now. What amendments and corrections have you planned? You said society is developing and hence the law too must change accordingly. What is your action plans to curb the misuse of 498A? Instead of resolving the issue of 498A misuse; instead of providing legal protection to those innocent families who are legally terrorized by the women you are calling ‘victims’, you have come up with yet another draconian law to multiply the suffering of innocent people. More than 600,000 families are legally threatened of false dowry harassment complaint each year. What have you done to stop this legal terrorism? You said we need to correct and amend the laws as we progress and society develops. What corrections and amendments have you planned in IPC 498A?    

To question on whether men should suffer before the Act undergoes changes, she said, “That’s not a bad idea.” 

Who made you the Minister of Women and Child Development? You are definitely a male-hater. When you already are a male-hater, then why you are giving lame justifications that woman needs protection. Just say it openly that you brought Domestic Violence law to torture men. What are you afraid of? You are a minister. You can even physically assault a police officer and go scot-free. If somebody is criticizing your Domestic violence law, why don’t you just say that you want all young wives/girlfriends of the country to torture men legally? Just say it. Stop concealing your ulterior motives behind lame arguments and justifications.     

“Any law is better than no law at all” when protecting women are concerned.” 

Do you even know the principles of Law? You need to go back to school. First you are saying that women needs protection, you say that men should suffer, and now you are saying that law is better than no law. As per the Constitution of India, every citizen has the Right to Equality (Art 14-18)(1) Equality before the law (ii) Equal protection of the laws, just in case you entered politics without reading the Constitution of India. If you think law is better than no law, then why have you not provided equal legal protection to men under domestic violence bill? Even if you have some personal hatred for men, which is evident and you also confessed it, you still have no rights to pass such law that is violating the constitutional rights of men. According to the Constitutional of India, men have the right to equality before the law, and therefore, your denial is unconstitutional and deserves to be legally prosecuted for violation of the Constitution of India for accomplishing your own personal vendetta by enacting such biased laws and saying that it is for the protection of women.  

“What you deem as silly is really not something I’ve created today. Under the IPC speaking in a vein that is denigrating to the status of women, which removes her from dignity, is very much an act (offence).” 

Do you even know the definition of Dignity? Dignity is not gender-specific. It is the quality of the character, values and ethics of a person. Are you saying that men have no dignity at all? Besides, every single man, one time of the other, is brutally nagged and humiliated by the woman in his life, which degrades his dignity. Why is that not an act of offence? According to you, if a man insults a woman, he should be punished, and if a woman insults a man, she should not be punished. Is this how you understand the principles of law?    

“It’s over-trivialising and over-simplifying this Act. Please understand, despite all the checks, women are burnt,” 

First, how do you plan to check the incidents of women being burnt to death when domestic violence bill has absolutely no clause referring to this issue? Maybe you haven’t read domestic violence bill because you are so much self-engrossed into torturing men, that you missed out the clause of women being burnt to death in domestic violence bill. If you are aware of that, please think a little deeper if you have to deceive people. People know more than you can ever imagine.  

“Because of a minute percentage of people who misappropriate an Act are you saying I should not bring an Act?” 

Minute percentage? 90% of the cases filed under dowry harassment law 498A are false. According to you, this statistical figure is minute percentage. Is that correct? If you think you want to conceal the truth, then your efforts are going to be fruitless because when so many people suffer from such draconian laws, the common man will come to know what is what. By denying, you are only putting a full stop on you political career. Instead of tackling the present crisis, you are impatiently brought in another biased law that will be misused on an unprecedented scale.    

“We have put in broad parameters and we will see in which direction the law goes.” 

You will only make sure that the media does not expose the scale on which domestic violence law will be misused. That is your broad parameters. That is what you have been doing in case of 498A misuse. You have already ascertained the direction of the law, which can easily be observed the way it is drafted. Men and innocent families will suffer and that is exactly what you want, and you also confessed it.   

“One in six women is raped, murdered, beaten to death, sent into mental asylums. I don’t think that is funny.” 

You may not think it is funny, but whoever reads your opinion will find it hilarious. One in six women is raped? From where did you get this statistics? There is no way you came up with this idea on your own, and if you did, you need to consult a doctor who will cure your paranoia. It is possible that you are considering the conjugal intercourse between married couples as rape. Then why don’t you accuse your own father of raping your mother?   

“I cannot accept every divorce has been examined on the merits of the case.” 

You surely need to understand the principles of laws. According to you, the judgment of the judiciary should not be based on the merit of the case. That is what you are saying?     

“I am empowering my women (with) the right to access the dignity to their life. If they have been denied justice in other fora, if they have been given an ex-parte divorce in their absence, if they have had no money to go and appeal in the courts and they are denied their rights and if the husband suddenly declares he’s bankrupt and won’t give them alimony,” 

Empowering women? According to your conduct, it appears that you like to empower women by violating the constitutional rights of men. And you proved it by setting an example of your own self. On January 20, 1993, Assistant Sub Inspector Suraj Mal, posted on the route at Kautilya Marg near Teen Murti on which the Prime Minister
was to pass, had detained Chowdhury’s car. You then got down from the car, quarreled with Head Constable Janki Ram, also on duty, and abused him besides giving him fist blows and kicks, thereby, obstructing him from performing his duty. Criminal case was filed against you under IPC 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant) and IPC 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty). Is this what you mean by empowering women? Is this how you like to encourage women of the country saying that you’ll torture all men and the law will only punish men? 

 

Honorable Minister of Women and Child Development, Smt Renuka Chowdhury, has eloquently described the way she has effectively engineered the destiny of our Indian Families and Marriage. It is now up to Indian men. Either they try to protect the Indian culture and marriage, or protect himself. If he attempts to protect the culture, the law, prepared by male-hating feminists like Renuka, will ensure that he is bankrupt, humiliated and imprisoned along with his own parents. In this process, these male-hating feminists believe will protect women and also have access to dignity in life. In the name of women empowerment, Men’s constitutional rights are butchered, Indian culture is destroyed and marriage will become extinct.  

Damage has been done.       

DV Bill: Questions to Renuka Chaudhury

Q.1 We all are aware that 498A is rampantly misused. Instead of solving that problem, you have introduced DV bill. Why? Are you not worried about innocent families being legally terrorized?  

Q.2 Men too are victims of domestic violence. Then why have you not provided legal protection to men under Domestic Violence Bill?  

Q.3 You gave a statement on national television saying, “It is men’s turn to suffer”. Is that true? If you did, what do you mean by that? 

Q.4 Do you agree that verbal or emotional abuse in Domestic Violence bill is a subjective and relative term? How will you make sure that using these clauses, women will not misuse this law?   

Q.5 Domestic Violence Bill is applicable in live-in relationship, too. Do you have any statistics showing that women who are into live-in relationships are victims of domestic violence? It is unlikely that rural women will ever be in a live-in relationship. 

Q.6 When we already have anti-dowry law 498A, then why have you incorporated the clause of dowry harassment in Domestic Violence Bill also? 

Q.7 One clause says that if a woman does not have a legal title over the man’s property, if she has some interest, she can demand the property legally using domestic violence bill. Don’t you think this clause is violating men’s right?   

Q.8 A clauses says that if a man ridicules, humiliates or abuses the woman sexually or violates the dignity of the woman, he is subjecting the woman of domestic violence. How would you define dignity? Dignity is not gender-specific. It is the quality of character, values and behaviour of a person irrespective of the gender. Are you saying that men have no dignity? 

Q.9 Even if the assets, bank account/locker solely belongs to the husband, the woman has the rights to demand from the man legally according to domestic violence bill. Are you not trying to legalize extortion for women through this bill? 

Q.10 Domestic violence bill also includes economic abuse. If a woman is asking something in monetary terms that the man can’t afford, do you think that the man should be imprisoned for this?  

Q.11 You are requesting the Government to sensitize the police officer toward women in handling domestic violence cases. Do you want the police officer arrest the accused if they find the case to be fabricated?  

Q.12 The clauses in Domestic Violence bill says that after the marriage or live-in relationship ends, the husband must provide alternative accommodation or pay the rent to the woman. According to the Hindu marriage, bigamy is a punishable offense. But live-in relationship that has no legal standing, a woman can have a number live-in relationship at the same time. What do you have to say about it? Are you not providing an opportunity to women to use domestic violence bill to extract property of the man legally?  

Q.13 Domestic Violence Bill has established a price to emotional distress and mental torture and ordering the man to pay to the woman as compensation. Do you think those women who are not actually mentally tortured will never want to make quick money out of this clause? Why? Q.14 You have already included live-in relationship in Domestic Violence Bill. What will be the responsibility of the woman to prove that she did had a live-in relationship with a man? What if the relationship never existed?  

Q.15 The bill says that the woman has the right to ask the Protection officer to restrain the family members of the man to come and live together or even visit the house. Is this not violating the fundamental rights of the family members of the man? If not, how? 

Q.16 The bill also says that the woman has the right to ask the protection officer to direct the man to leave the house. Is this not violating the rights of men? Even if the house legally belongs to the man, he is kicked out of his own house. Is this how you like to protect women?  

Q.17 One clause says that after the complaint is registered, the man will have no right to communicate with the woman in any ways. If a person is arrested, the police will provide the person the right to contact anybody. And here you don’t want the man to contact the woman at all. What are you trying to do?  

Q.18 The clause says that even after the live-in relationship has ended; the man can’t evict the woman from his own legally possessed house. Are you saying that even after live-in relationship ends, the man is liable to provide the woman? When the live-in relationship is not legally recognized, then how can you constrain men’s fundamental rights?  

Q.19 The clause says that even if the live-in relationship existed in any point of time ever in the past, the woman has the rights to complain against the man for domestic violence. This way the woman is given a way to take revenge and extort money legally from the man whom she had a live-in relationship in the past. What do you have to say about this?  

Q.20 The clause says that upon the sole testimony of the woman, the court can conclude that domestic violence was committed by the accused. That means the accused is guilty until proven innocent, and the woman need not prove her allegations. Do you think that this approach is as per the legal principles? Are you not taking away the constitutional rights of men? How? This way the bill will be misused just like 498A. What do you think about this? 

Q.21 You know 498A is massively misused. You also know that Domestic Violence Bill will also be misused. What do you want to do? Is this how women can be protected by taking away all constitutional rights of men?  

Q.22 You said that this bill is only to protect women from domestic violence. But the bill can easily break millions of families. Is this what you want? 

Q.23 Many families, lawyers, NGOs all over the country are objecting on the way the bill is drafted. You don’t seem to be worried at all. Do you think their objection is baseless? Are you going to ignore them like you are doing in case of 498A?   

Q.24 After all this, do you think you deserve to be the Minister of Women and Child Development? When you have introduced draconian laws like DV Bill and have not amended 498A, you don’t have any rights to ruin Indian family. What do you have to say? 

Q.25 Are you not going to step down from the ministry for destroying Indian families and marriage? Why not?

Effects of DV Bill

DV Bill has been welcomed by women groups and rightly so as they now have the legal rights to accuse their husband and in-laws for not fulfilling her demands. When IPC 498A has been grossly misused, then who will not be tempted to misuse DV bill? DV bill has been so composed that only a woman can accuse a man, a man cannot accuse a woman of domestic violence. Men commit suicide 4 times more often than women. Men suffer more deadly depression than women. There is none interested in paying attention to the plight of men. In any given period, a man’s life has always been gruesome and tough than women. But men have always been expected to take it in their stride unlike women who complains over a non-existent problem.  It is amusing to understand that what a husband faces in the hands of his erratic, hot-tempered and stubborn wife is all part and parcel of a married life, and when a wife gets paranoid when her husband refuses to fulfill her absurd demands, she has the right to call it domestic violence. The only reason for not allowing men too to accuse his wife of domestic violence clearly means that only women should be allowed to make life difficult for men. Only women should be allowed to victimize men legally. Just because men are courageous enough to take all trials of life in their stride does not imply that they need no legal protection from a devilish wife.   A wife is in a position of accusing her husband of domestic violence even when there was no domestic violence. This understanding itself must be good enough reason for people to challenge the skewed judgment of feminists. Even though feminists like Girija Vyas, Flavia Anges, Brinda Karat and many more, who are convinced that DV Bill will be misused itself proves that they don’t care if the marriage breaks-up. People who don’t care about the society and people’s welfare have no rights to introduce such a discriminatory law. And because we are not challenging them, they are ceaselessly proposing ridiculous, anti-social laws for women to misuse. These feminists are enjoying themselves in orgies and the common man is suffering.  The post-DV Bill will allow women to blackmail their husband and threaten them with legal action if her demands are not met. Therefore, it suggests that husband will either stand his ground and go to jail or live like a slave to his wife. It is important to note that those men who were falsely accused under dowry harassment case were all positive and optimistic about their marriage and had trust and understanding with their wife. But they were sent to jail by their wife’s false complaint. If such a thing can happen to a positive and optimistic man, then it can happen to anybody.  Women have always been deceptive in demanding legal protection and even after DV Bill, they give statements like, “This is only half the work done, women need more protection.” Such statements force all of us to believe that they are in for introducing tyranny in the country. Women are insatiable. Even after it is accepted that men are the weaker gender of the society, women will still continue to call themselves weaker gender in order to extract more biased legal protection to harass men.   We will be making a grave mistake if we do not join together and challenge these feminists who are on the mission to destroy
India. One man can’t stand a chance against these devils. We must unite, join forces and fight for our rights, for the safety of our family and for the well-being of the generations to come. And if we let these feminists do what they want to do then marriage will be non-existent and there will be no future of the children. These women have lost their minds. It is now our duty to save Indian families.  Only we men can protect India from destruction. Think about it. Each and every woman out there is eligible to become a legal terrorist and who knows, you might have invited one such legal terrorists into your family by marrying one. By not recognizing this danger, you will only make life hell for innocent people who want more men to stand against these feminists.   

Domestic Violence on Men

For centuries, married men have been brutally nagged and have considered it as part and parcel of a married life. There will be not a single married man who has never been emotionally abused, threatened, brutally nagged, and even physically assaulted by his wife. However, looking at the present scenario, it seems that men are the architect of their own precarious condition in the present woman’s world. They failed to consider wife’s atrocities as domestic violence. They failed to protest against the Government for approving ridiculous biased women protective laws. They failed to raise issues when innocent men are victimized and convicted with a false complaint of a woman. They failed to foresee that living in a female-dominated society, they will always remain in constant threat of been falsely accused by a woman. Maybe because in the olden times, our parents had tackled mundane and trivial arguments with maturity and understanding, instead of going to the police station and filing an FIR.

The magnitude of the severity of Domestic violence Bill has been vastly underestimated. Lets have a look on how men’s life will become hell.

1)      Doesn’t matter if you don’t argue with your wife, you can still be falsely accused of domestic violence.

2)      Even when your wife abuses your parents, you will still be scared of getting falsely accused of domestic violence.

3)      Your wife can demand any amount of money and you can be falsely accused of not complying with her demands.

4)      Even if you come to know that your wife is cheating on you, you have reason to get scared of falsely accusing you of domestic violence before confronting her.

5)      Not only your wife, any woman can now accuse you of any violence even if you are innocent whether on the streets, banks, offices, restaurants, buses, trains, planes, anywhere.

6)      Even if you are into a live-in relationship, you are still exposed to the danger of being falsely accused of domestic violence and may even lose your personal property.

7)      Since all the women have the license to complain now, prostitutes too can threaten you of violence if you do not pay her demands.

8 )      Male teachers and professors are also not safe. They could also be falsely accused of violence if a female student wants him to pass her in the examination.

In short, the danger a man will be facing after domestic violence bill is endless. Those already married will live a submissive life realizing that a sword is hanging over his hand and it is up to his wife to decide when to halal him. Women call this condition as gender equality. It is typical that not a single woman has criticized this sort of tyrannical law. And men are helpless saying that beyond criticizing this law within their friend circle, they can’t do anything.   

The consequences of domestic violence bill will be disastrous. Here are few of the foreseeable repercussions of this law.

1)      There will be sharp increase in divorce cases making men bankrupt, and children growing up without their fathers will be exposed to child sexual abuse.

2)      Live-in relationships will increase if a man doesn’t know that he is still under constant legal threat.

3)      There will be an unprecedented increase in male-foeticide because after this law, who would want a male child and get arrested when he gets married?

4)      More and more men will visit prostitutes leading to a massive increase of condoms sales. And those who can’t go to prostitutes will turn homosexual.

5)      Marriage will be non-existent and those getting married will be under constant risk of going bankrupt legally.

6)      Those who can afford it will leave India for good because they will be safe in any country but
India.

Women were madly waiting for this bill because they are certain that when it is introduced, then there will be no scope of amending it later. Not even the Government will be asking them to amend it sensing the danger of them getting politically boycotted by women organizations. However, they do try to deceive people saying that they will make sure that this law does not get misused. But the fact still remains that if at all they are motivated to stop misuse then why haven’t they done anything about IPC 498A (anti-dowry law), which is rampantly misused? For your information, Renuka Chowdhury, the executor of domestic violence bill, had once physically assaulted a police inspector with her chappal. If she is freely taking the laws into her hands, what to expect from other women?

 

It will be similar to the times for the country when Indira Gandhi declared national emergency but this time only men will live like slaves. Dictatorship is here and legal extortionists – the women, will become all powerful calling it as gender equality. This is India. After few years, if a survey is conducted on the worst country to live in, the answer will not be Iraq, Afghanistan, not even Brazil, it will undoubtedly be
India.