For decades, conversations on gender based violence have rightly focused on the suffering and vulnerabilities of women. Yet, recent incidents involving the deaths of husbands and male partners within matrimonial relationships have raised uncomfortable but important questions about whether society adequately recognizes male victimhood. As an observer of these developments, I believe the issue is not about competing with women’s experiences but about acknowledging that abuse, harassment, and violence can affect individuals regardless of gender. A truly just society must be willing to extend empathy, protection, and legal recognition to all victims, ensuring that justice remains inclusive rather than selective.
Male as a Victim within the Marriage
One of the most overlooked aspects of matrimonial disputes is the possibility that men, too, may experience abuse within intimate relationships. While such experiences may not always leave visible scars, emotional abuse, psychological harassment, coercive control, and manipulation can have profound consequences on a person’s mental wellbeing. Some men speak of being subjected to constant humiliation, threats, social isolation, financial pressure, or damage to their reputation. Yet, many hesitate to seek help. The fear of being mocked, disbelieved, or perceived as weak often discourages them from reporting their experiences. Deeply ingrained social stereotypes continue to portray men as inherently strong and incapable of victimhood, making it difficult for society to acknowledge that they too can suffer harm within marriage.
Marital homicide: an emerging concern
Over the past few years, a series of cases involving the deaths of husbands, fiancés, and male partners has increasingly drawn public attention and sparked difficult conversations about victimhood within intimate relationships. While these incidents differ in their facts and circumstances, they collectively challenge the long-standing assumption that men are rarely vulnerable within matrimonial settings. As details emerge from investigations and court proceedings, many are beginning to question whether existing discussions on domestic and relationship violence adequately acknowledge male victims. The issue is not about creating a hierarchy of suffering or diminishing the experiences of women; rather, it is about recognizing that violence, manipulation, and betrayal can affect individuals irrespective of gender. These cases warrant careful criminological and victimological analysis, free from stereotypes, so that public discourse and legal responses are guided by evidence, fairness, and a genuine commitment to justice.
Notable case study
Every few months, a case emerges that briefly captures the nation’s attention before fading from the headlines. Recently, however, a series of cases involving the deaths of husbands, fiancés, and male partners has left me wondering whether there is an uncomfortable conversation we have been reluctant to have. The allegations in the Siya Goyal–Ketan Agarwal case, the shocking circumstances surrounding Raja Raghuvanshi’s death during his honeymoon, and other cases associated with Twisha Sharma, Dipika Sharma, and Nikita Bhat are different in their facts, but they share a common thread: they compel us to confront the possibility that men, too, can be vulnerable within intimate relationships.
For years, our public discourse has understandably focused on protecting women from violence and abuse. That concern remains as important today as ever. Yet, somewhere along the way, we may have become uncomfortable with acknowledging that victimhood itself is not gender-specific. When a woman suffers, society instinctively rallies around her. When a man suffers, the first reaction is often disbelief, humour, or suspicion. We ask what he must have done, rather than what may have happened to him.
What struck me while following these cases was not merely the nature of the allegations but the public response they generated. There appeared to be genuine surprise that a man could be deceived, manipulated, abused, or even killed within the context of a relationship. That surprise reveals more about our social assumptions than about the cases themselves.
The purpose of raising these questions is not to create a competition between male and female suffering. Pain does not become less real because someone else suffers too. Rather, these incidents invite us to broaden our understanding of victimhood. If justice is truly blind, then our empathy must be as well. A society that seeks equality cannot selectively recognise victims based on gender; it must be prepared to acknowledge suffering wherever it exists and extend compassion to all who experience it.
Gender, society, and the construction of Victimhood
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to recognising male victimization is not the absence of evidence, but the persistence of social stereotypes. As a society, we have become accustomed to viewing women as victims and men as protectors. This perception is rooted in historical realities, yet it can sometimes prevent us from acknowledging situations that do not fit conventional narratives. From a young age, men are taught to be strong, resilient, and emotionally self-sufficient. Phrases such as “boys don’t cry” and “be a man” are often presented as virtues, but they can also discourage men from expressing vulnerability or seeking help when they are suffering.
The media, too, plays an important role in shaping public perceptions of victimhood. Cases involving female victims often evoke immediate sympathy and public outrage, whereas male victims may be met with skepticism, ridicule, or indifference. As a result, many men hesitate to report abuse, fearing that their experiences will not be taken seriously.. If we are serious about creating a just and compassionate society, we must move beyond gendered assumptions and acknowledge that suffering, vulnerability, and the need for support are human experiences that transcend gender.
The need for reassessment: Path towards gender neutral Justice
The growing discussion on male victimization in matrimonial relationships highlights the need to examine whether India’s legal framework adequately addresses the experiences of all victims. While laws protecting women from domestic violence, discrimination, and abuse remain essential, it is equally important to consider whether men facing genuine abuse, harassment, coercion, or violence have access to effective legal remedies and institutional support. The objective is not to weaken existing safeguards for women but to make the justice system more inclusive and responsive to changing social realities. A balanced legal system must evolve alongside society and periodically reassess its laws and procedures to ensure fairness, due process, and equal access to justice. Victimhood should not be determined solely by gender, and institutions must be capable of protecting victims while also safeguarding the rights of the accused. As awareness of male distress in matrimonial disputes increases, there is a growing need to explore gender-neutral support mechanisms, counselling services, and appropriate legal safeguards. Recognising male victimization does not undermine women’s rights; instead, it reinforces the principle that every individual who suffers harm deserves compassion, protection, and justice. Men may also experience emotional abuse, psychological trauma, coercion, and physical violence in intimate relationships, yet many hesitate to seek help because of social stigma, traditional expectations of masculinity, and fear of disbelief. Expanding access to counselling and mental health services can encourage more victims to come forward. Effective policymaking also requires reliable data on male victimization. Comprehensive research can help governments develop evidence-based laws, awareness programmes, and victim support services. Additionally, police, courts, and support organisations should be trained to recognise and respond to male victims without prejudice. Ultimately, gender-neutral justice means ensuring that every complaint is assessed impartially, every victim is treated with dignity, and legal institutions provide fair protection and support to all individuals, regardless of gender.
Conclusion
As I reflect on the cases and concerns discussed in this article, one conclusion becomes increasingly difficult to ignore: violence, abuse, and victimization are fundamentally human issues, not exclusively male or female ones. For too long, our understanding of victimhood has been shaped by rigid assumptions about gender, often making it difficult to acknowledge experiences that fall outside conventional narratives. Recognising male victims does not diminish the suffering of women, nor does it weaken the legal protections that women have fought hard to secure. Instead, it reinforces the principle that every individual deserves dignity, empathy, and access to justice.
A society committed to equality cannot selectively extend compassion. Whether the victim is a man or a woman, the response of institutions, the media, and the public should be guided by fairness rather than preconceived notions. Recent cases involving male victims have highlighted gaps in public discourse and raised legitimate questions about whether all forms of suffering receive equal recognition.
The challenge before us is not to replace one narrative of victimhood with another, but to create a more inclusive and balanced framework that acknowledges the realities faced by all victims. This requires legal systems that are responsive, support mechanisms that are accessible, and social attitudes that are free from genderbased assumptions. Ultimately, justice demands equal empathy, equal protection, and equal institutional concern. Only when we are willing to recognise and respond to suffering irrespective of gender can we truly claim to be building a society founded on fairness, dignity, and the rule of law.
*Ritesh Kharae is a practising advocate and Managing Partner at Magnus Legal, Kamlesh Singh is a lawyer and author of Sabarimala Verdict: A Tussle between Constitution & Religion.
