Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:18, 27 July 2015

Part of a series on
Masculism
Movements Fathers' rights movement Intactivism HimToo movement Men's movement Mythopoetic men's movement Men's liberation movement Men's rights movement
Topics and issues Topics Sex differences in humans Human male sexuality Gender equality Misandry Hegemonic masculinity Effeminacy Gender roles Machismo Gender neutrality Men in feminism (Pro-feminism Anti-feminism) Issues Discrimination against men Violence against men Male expendability Circumcision controversies (Genital mutilation Forced circumcision) Rape (Prison rape False accusation of rape Rape of males) Domestic violence (against men) Violence against LGBT people (Homophobia Gayphobia Gay bashing Transphobia) Conscription Reproductive rights Paternal rights and abortion No-fault divorce Sperm theft Reverse sexism Toxic masculinity
By country Men's rights India Fathers' rights Australia Italy United Kingdom United States
Lists and categories Index of masculism topics Category:Masculism Category:Masculists Category:Men's movement Category:Men's organizations
See also International Men's Day Minister for Men Movember Men's studies
v t e

The men's rights movement in India is associated with various men's rights organizations. They promote the introduction of gender neutral laws and repeal of laws that they consider anti-men.

History

1988–2005

The Indian men's rights movement was started by Ram Prakash Chugh, a Supreme Court advocate, in Delhi in 1988 to handle false cases of dowry and torture. It was called Crime against Man Cell also known as Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Husbands. Chugh himself faced problems in his marriage. In 1996, the Purush Hakka Sanrakshan Samiti (Men's Rights Preservation Society) was formed by Patil to help husbands falsely imprisoned in dowry cases and to help avoid divorces by counseling couples. Sangyabalya, a helpline for husbands and families harassed by anti-dowry laws, was started in June 2003 by Arun Murthy in Bangalore. He started the helpline after his sister-in-law filed a dowry harassment case against his younger brother and his entire family was implicated. Save Indian Family was founded on 9 March 2005 by the unification of a number of family's rights organizations across India. On 19 November 2007, the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) celebrated International Men's Day for the first time in India.

2006–2010

In 2009, the Ministry of Women and Child Development agreed to meet men's rights activists to listen to their plea that the dowry and domestic violence laws were biased against them. On 25 June 2009, the activists were invited to discussion possible changes to these laws. The agenda of the meeting was changed a day before to exhort men to stand up against exploitation of women. The activists criticized the last minute agenda change. A week later, the ministry said that they had received a large number of complaints, many of which appeared to be legitimate. They said that they may consider reviewing the marital laws, but were reluctant to change them in a way that would weaken their implementation for women.

In September 2008, Save Family Foundation sent a complaint against a Kitply plywood commercial to the Advertising Standards Council of India. The ad showed a wife slapping her husband on her wedding day because of a creaking bed. The complaint alleged that the ad promoted violence against men by portraying it as funny. In the same month, Chennai-based organization Indiya Kudumba Pathukappu Iyaakam, complained against a Pond's ad which portrayed men as wife-beaters and an ICICI Prudential Insurance commercial which allegedly portrayed verbal and economical abuse against men.

In 2009, Child's Right and Family Welfare was formed to demand fairer laws for men, including better child custody and access laws. In April 2010, when Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Malik was accused of cheating by a woman from Hyderabad, Ayesha Siddiqui, just prior to his marriage to tennis player Sania Mirza, SIFF released a statement in support of Malik and demanding that his passport be returned. It added its concerns over such misuses of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

In late 2012, the men's rights activists criticised actor Aamir Khan's television show, Satyamev Jayate. In December 2012, about 15,000 men pledged to boycott Aamir Khan's film Talaash. According to Anil Kumar, co-founder of SIFF, Aamir Khan had portrayed men negatively on the show and had projected only one side of the domestic violence issue.

2010–2013

In September 2012, Ministry of Women and Child Development Krishna Tirath proposed a bill that would make it mandatory for husbands to pay a salary to their wives. This move was criticized by men's rights groups and they sought Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's intervention in the matter.

Phanisai Bhardwaj, a Lok Satta Party candidate in Karnataka assembly polls, was found out to be a member of Centre for Men's Rights, against the Section 498a of IPC and reservations in jobs or education, after he made a post on Facebook in April 2013. He faced a protest campaign against him on the blogosphere, which called the Lok Satta Party "anti-women" and "anti SC/ST". Jayprakash Narayan, founder of Lok Satta Party, called Bhardwaj's position on women "unacceptable". Later, Bhardwaj was asked to withdraw his nomination.

On 25 August 2013, Hridaya, a Kolkata-based NGO raised concerns about the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment Bill), 2010 which had been has been approved by the cabinet and cleared by Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by defence minister A. K. Antony. According to Amartya Talukdar, the bill, which introduces the concept of no-fault divorce and marital property is not fair for men. It will put the institution of marriage in jeopardy.

On 21 December 2013, members of National Coalition for Men held a demonstration outside the offices of West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC) in Kolkata, stating that former Supreme Court judge Asok Kumar Ganguly, and then chairman of WBHRC, was innocent until proven guilty. Ganguly had been accused of sexual harassment by a law intern. Amit Gupta, General Secretary of National Coalition for Men, said that even if the legal system of India and the UN Charter on Human Rights states that an accused is to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, Ganguly was being held as guilty and subjected to a media trial.

2014

On 16 February 2014, the members of Hridaya organised another protest against the Marriage Laws Amendment Bill (India) that would introduce no fault divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act by wearing saris. Amartya Talukdar voiced concern and said the that if the government really intends to empower women, then the law should be made applicable to all communities by bringing uniform civil code instead of being applicable only to Hindus.

In March 2014, men's rights activists also criticised the second season of Aamir Khan's TV show, Satyamev Jayate. SIFF said that the Aamir Khan quoted the domestic violence data from the National Family Health Survey, which surveyed only women from 15 to 49 age. They said the show gave the perception that men do not suffer from domestic violence.

In May 2014, Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) launched a mobile app called SIF One to reach out to men in distress. In the same month, an all India telephone helpline was launched.

Indian general election, 2014

During the pre-election campaign period for the Indian general election, 2014, on 11 January 2014, National Coalition for Men in Kolkata present their demand of the formation of a men's ministry and a men's rights panel to all political parties in India. They also released their own manifesto called "Men-ifesto" which dealt with the issues of men and the need of provisions from the government to address those issues. The other demands raised were gender neutral laws, rehabilitation of men who were acquitted, speedy trials of the accused languishing in custody, and equal rights in child custody. The National Coalition for Men met with political parties across India to urge them to include men's rights in their manifestos. Amit Gupta said that they may start their own political party if their demands are ignored.

On 28 March 2014, Amit Gupta urged voters across the country to exercise the "None of the above" (NOTA) in the 2014 general elections. According to him, no political party was paying heed to their demands of gender neutral laws and a Ministry of Men's Welfare.

In early April 2014, Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) sent out four queries regarding men's issues to various political leaders. Anil Kumar of SIFF said that they would decide which party to vote for in the 2014 election based on the responses. He added that a survey of SIFF members had indicated a lack of support for the Congress party and the Communist Party of India. The four questions that were posed are whether the party would introduce a bill to protect men against domestic violence, whether biological fathers should be given partial custody in a shared parenting arrangement in divorces, whether consensual sex with the false promise of marriage should be considered rape and if a man should be considered a rapist for breaking up with his girlfriend, and whether the party would introduce men studies courses in universities similar to other gender studies courses.

On 16 April 2014, men's right groups asked supporters to vote for Samajwadi Party or use "None of the above" (NOTA). Amit Lakhani, an activist of Save Family Foundation based in New Delhi, expressed support for Samajwadi Party by saying that only that political party had included men's issues in their manifesto.

Issues

Anti-dowry laws

The men's rights activists claim that the anti-dowry laws are being frequently misused to harass and extort husbands. The high rate of suicide among married men in India is also attributed to harassment under these laws by the activists. The practice of giving dowry was first criminalised in 1961 under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and later the Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in 1983. The Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which deals with cruelty to a wife states that:

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means:
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

The Section 113b of the Indian Evidence Act, 1879 says that if a married woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage, it must be assumed by the court that her husband and his family abetted the suicide, especially if there was evidence of prior dowry demands.

Until July 2014, the Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code allowed the police to arrest the persons mentioned in the complaint without a warrant or without any investigation. The crime was non-bailable, so chances of getting a bail are low and husbands usually lost their jobs while in custody. On 2 July 2014, the Supreme Court of India in an order stopped automatic arrests under the Section 498a. The Court directed the police to use the Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which contains a checklist, to decide whether an arrest is necessary. The Court also stated that in all arrests the magistrate must examine whether further detention was necessary. There is also no provision of withdrawing a complaint in case of a reconciliation. However, an amendment to rectify this has been proposed.

Of all arrests made the Indian Penal Code, 6% are made under the Section 498a. Of all crimes reported under the Indian Penal Code, 4.5% are filed under Section 498a, which is the highest barring theft and hurt. The police finds 9% to be false or under the wrong law. Of the cases that go to trial, only 15% result in conviction. In July 2014, 3,72,706 cases under Section 498a were pending in Indian courts.

According to SIFF, these laws don't follow conventional legal premises where a person is innocent until proven guilty. It has also pointed out that several of those who are arrested under this law are women themselves, i.e., female relatives of husbands. Former justice of Delhi High Court Shiv Narayan Dhingra has admitted that this law is being used by women to harass their husbands and in-laws. He has opined that parents should not go through with a marriage, if dowry is being demanded of them. Swarup Sarkar, a spokesperson of SIFF, has said that men with low incomes are rarely targeted and most victims of misuse are well-off. He has claimed that these laws assume that women are always truthful, and don't place much importance on evidence. He has termed misuse of these laws, legal terrorism.

Almost of a quarter of people arrested under Section 298a are women, mostly mothers and sisters of the accused husband. In 2012, 47,951 women were arrested under this law. According to Ram Prakash Chugh, a large majority of the women in Tihar jail are there due to dowry charges. He has claimed that sometimes mothers of the bride bring dowry charges on their in-laws when the bride fails to adjust to her in-laws. Organisations like All India Mother-in-Law Protection Forum (AIMPF) and Mothers And Sisters of Husbands Against Abuse of Law (MASHAAL) have been formed to represent such women. According to Sunil Gupta, a spokesperson for Tihar Jail, there 280 in-laws in the prison accused of dowry harassment and most of them are women. The women are held in a separate section of the prison, which has been nicknamed Saas-Nanand (mother-in-law and sister-in-law) barrack.

Some non-resident Indians (NRI) groups have also demanded amendments to the anti-dowry law. Anindya Chatterjee, a California-based IT worker who runs an online support group, was accused under the law. He has said that sometimes while visiting India, men are accused under the law and get arrested by police without verifying if the case is genuine and their passports are seized. The cases often take a year to clear up, as a result the men lose their jobs abroad due to frequent travels to attend the court or being unable to leave India. Canada and United States have issued travel advisories warning of India's anti-dowry law misuses in the past.

Jyotsna Chatterjee, member of the Joint Women's Programme which was involved in drafting the Domestic Violence Act 2005, has responded to these criticism of the anti-dowry law, by stating that compared to the men who have faced the misuse of the anti-dowry law, many more women have suffered from dowry demands. She has said that there has been no change in the way society sees women and they are still treated as second-class citizens. Indira Jaising has also rejected the view that anti-dowry law and domestic violence laws are being misused. She has also claimed that the high acquittal under dowry cases occurs because prosecutions are conducted improperly and people are encouraged to settle out of court. Indrani Sinha of Sanlaap has said that the anti-dowry cannot be easily misused. She said that if the husband and his family are innocent then they should go to the police before the wife and file a complaint.

Notable verdicts and legal panel reports

In November 2003, the Committee on Reforms in the Criminal Justice System (CRCJS), headed by V. S. Malimath, recommended that Section 498a be made bailable and compoundable.

In July 2005, the Supreme Court admitted that in many instances complaints under the Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code are not bona fide and have oblique motives. The court added that acquittal in such cases doesn't erase the suffering the defendant has to go through, which is compounded by adverse media coverage. The court also directed the legislature to find ways to check such false cases.

In August 2010, the Supreme Court directed the government to amend Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code in view of the rising numbers of false or exaggerated complaints against husbands and their relatives by women. It further added that such complaints result in the husband and his relatives remaining in custody until trial or bail, which kills all chances of an amicable settlement.

In January 2012, the Law Commission of India recommended that Section 498a should be made a compoundable offense. But, the court will decide if the particular case is compoundable or not.

On 2 July 2014, the Supreme Court said that this law is being used by some women to harass their husband and in-laws. The court prohibited the police from making arrests on the mere basis of a complaint. The court asked the police to follow Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides a 9-point checklist on which must to used to decide the need for an arrest. The court also said that a magistrate must decide whether an arrested accused is needed to be kept under further detention. The decision was in response to a Special Leave Petition (SPL) filed by one Arnesh Kumar challenging his arrest and of his family under this law. The decision was welcomed by men's right activists but was criticized by women rights activists. However, due to lack of communication to police stations, the guidelines of Supreme Court of India are still not getting followed.

Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Research has criticized the Supreme Court's judgement which said that anti-dowry laws are being misused and stopped arrests based on FIRs. She said that if laws are being misused then the law enforcement should be held responsible.

Proposed amendments

In 2014, the National Commission for Women had proposed some changes to the law which included widening the definition of the term dowry and increasing the penalty for false cases. But, the suggestions were rejected by the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The Minister for Women, Maneka Gandhi, told the Lok Sabha in December, "The NCW had recommended certain amendments in Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the ministry has taken a considered view on the matter and decided to drop the amendment proposed by NCW in the present form after taking into account the comments of the high level committee on the status of women and the ministry of home affairs". Ranjana Kumari of Centre for Social Research welcomed this decision to not dilute the law.

In March 2015, it was reported that Government of India was planning to amendment the Section 498A. It would be made compoundable which would allow the parties to settle if the court recommends it. The fine for filing a false case would increased from ₹1,000 to ₹15,000.

Amit Gupta, of National Coalition for Men, has opposed making the law compoundable. He has said that it would make extortion easier. He has pointed out after Andhra Pradesh made it compoundable, the number of case rose by 150% and conviction rate fell by 400%.

Maneka Gandhi, the Minister for Women & Child Development, has also opposed any changes to the existing dowry laws. Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Research has also expressed disagreement over demands to amend the anti-dowry law, pointing out that dowry deaths are still occurring in India.

Divorce and child custody laws

The men's rights activists in India claim that the divorce and child custody laws are biased against men. They say that this allows divorced wives from stop men seeing their children from long periods of times. They have said that alimony should not be granted if the the wife is the primary earner of the family and the law should see men capable of bringing up children.

In India, child custody is granted to the father only if the mother is mentally unstable or has left home leaving behind the child. At present, the matter custody in case of divorce is governed by two laws: Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. But, both laws do not have any provisions for shared parenting or joint custody.

Under the Evidence Act, 1872, if a child is born within a marriage or within 280 days of dissolution of a marriage, then the child is considered legitimate and is entitled to child support and inheritance. At present, DNA paternity tests do not take precedence over this law. The courts may still choose to ignore the genetic evidence and ask a non-biological parent to pay for child support.

An organisation named Children's Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) has demanded better child access laws and has called the current custodial laws gender-biased. It has demanded amendments to the Guardians and Wards Act be amended to make shared parenting mandatory.

Swarup Sarkar of Save Family Foundation has speculated that now two out of three Indian couples actively share parenting. Kumar Jahagirdar, president of CRISP, has noted a growth in men who are the primary caregivers in the family.

Notable verdicts

In April 2003, the Supreme Court of India granted a woman divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. She had claimed that her husband was harassing her and accusing her of affairs. Although four or five out of ten divorce cases in India allege mental agony, Ram Prakash Chugh said that if a man brought similar charges to a court, he will be unlikely to get a favourable ruling.

In September 2008, the Delhi High Court in a verdict said that a woman earning sufficient income is not entitled to maintenance from her divorced husband. The verdict came after a man challenged a family court's decision to grant ₹7,500 monthly alimony to his wife. The man had pointed out that his wife was earning ₹80,000 for month and had no other responsibilities.

In September 2010, the Delhi High Court released a verdict that a man cannot be forced to pay alimony if he is unemployed. The man had challenged a lower court's order that he should pay ₹5,000 as alimony. The man pointed out that he was an expatiate working as a sales manager in Angola and had come to India to marry. He got married in May 2007 but the marriage lasted only three weeks. Due to his wife's complaint, the police seized his passport and he was unable to return to job, which resulted in his termination. The court stated that wife was equally qualified to her husband, and was working in a multi-national company, thus she cannot claim alimony.

In September 2010, the Delhi High Court said that a man's assets should be examined while deciding the alimony sum. The court was deciding a case where man initially asked to pay ₹15,000 in total as alimony per month by a lower. After an appeal from his wife, he was asked to pay ₹45,000 by another court which took into consideration his net assets. The man had challenged this decision by pointing out his monthly salary was ₹41,000. The court reduced the alimony sum to ₹20,000 per and stated that a man's parents and sibling also have a stake in his assets.

In October 2010, Supreme Court of India passed a judgment according to which long-term live-in relationships will be considered as marriage. The female spouse then can claim alimony under the Domestic Violence Act 2005 which uses the phrase "relationship in the nature of marriage". The court was adjudicating a case where a man, who was already married, was being sue by another woman.

In June 2012, Delhi High Court said that a woman who is educated and capable of maintaining herself, but has quit her job voluntarily is not entitle to alimony. The verdict was given in case where a woman challenged a lower court's decision to not grant her any alimony. The High Court pointed out that the woman was capable of earning ₹50,000 per month but was choosing to remain unemployed, and denied any alimony to her. However, the court ordered the husband to pay ₹10,000 towards child support.

On 12 September 2013, the Karnataka High Court granted equal custody of a 12-year-old boy to both parents. The court ordered that the boy to remain with his mother from 1 July to 31 December of every year and to remain with his father from 1 January to 30 June, until the child reaches the age of majority. Both the parents were also given visitations rights on Saturday and Sunday, when the child would be with the other parent. The child was also allowed to call or video chat with the other parent when in custody of one. The court also ordered both parents to bear the child's education and other expenses equally.

Proposed laws

The proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 will allow courts to decide compensation to wife and children from the husband's inherited and inheritable property. The bill has provision for "irretrievable breakdown" of marriage where both parties must have lived apart for 3 years before filing for divorce. The bill also allows the wife to oppose the dissolution of a marriage if it will leave her in financial hardship.

The SIFF has protested against the Marriage (Amendment) Bill 2010. According to Rajesh Vakharia, President of SIFF, this bill will encourage divorce and will be expensive to husbands, as they would have to part with their hard earned assets. He has called this bill a regressive move, and has stated that it jeopardizes the financial and social security of a man. He has pointed out that as most men marry after becoming financially secure, the possibility of losing their hard-earned wealth and property will discourage men from marriage and feed the gynophobia in the society.

Kumar V. Jahgirdar, founder and president of the Bangalore-based Children's Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP), has said that the alimony should be decided on the basis of how many years the couple have spent as married. He pointed out that the law doesn't allow the husband to refute the wife's claims. He also argued that it is based on a flawed assumption that the children are always best cared for by their mother. He has also stated that it violates the Article 14 of the Constitution. Swarup Sarkar, founder and member of Save Family Foundation, said that the suggestions offered by them to the Law Minister and the parliamentary committee were ignored.

Derek O'Brien, member of All India Trinamool Congress political party, has argued that this law empowers women at the expense of men. He proposed that this law should be made gender neutral by using the word "spouse" instead of "wife" or "husband". Arvind Kumar Singh of Samajwadi Party said that the law has potential for misuse like the anti-dowry laws and added that it treats men as being responsible for divorces. Vandana Chavan of Nationalist Congress Party has pointed out that the bill was unfair as nowadays, many women earn equal to or more than their husbands.

In November 2014, the Law Commission of India started a study and released a consultation paper on its website seeking views from the public on proposed guidelines for joint custody and shared parenting. The commission expects to complete the study by January 2015 and present the findings to the government for amendments to the law by the 2015 budget session of the Parliament.

Flavia Agnes has opposed the shared parenthood law consultation paper floated by the Law Commission of India by claiming that it was being lobbied by men's rights organisations and that it would erode women and children's rights.

Domestic violence

According to men's rights activists, the incidence of domestic violence against men in recent years has increased. The activists say that many cases go unreported as men feel ashamed to report it, or fear false cases against them. Two groups, Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) and Indian Social Awareness and Activism Forum (INSAAF), have demanded inclusion of men's issues in the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) conducted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to allow a better picture of situation to emerge.

Ram Prakash Chugh has stated that many cases of domestic violence against men go unreported, as husbands don't report being attacked by their wives due to their ego. Swarup Sarkar, founder of SIFF, has said that there is no legal provision for married men facing verbal or mental abuse. Indian Social Awareness and Activism Forum (INSAAF), and Confidare Research have drafted a bill which aims to protect men and boys from domestic violence from their spouse, girlfriends and parents. The draft is called Saving Men from Intimate Terror Act (SMITA) and the groups aim to introduce in for debate in the parliament.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 primarily provides protection to wives and female live-in partners from domestic violence carried out by husbands, male live-in partners or their relatives. Domestic violence includes abuse or treat of abuse, whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic. Swarup Sarkar of Save Indian Family has argued that Domestic Violence Act should be made gender neutral. He has also termed the law as legal terrorism.

Indira Jaising has argued that men don't need to be covered under the domestic violence act as they have several other rights to appeal with, but women need special rights to defend their lives in a male dominated society.

The Jabalpur, Amarkantak and Hoshangabad region of Madhya Pradesh reports a large number of sadhus who have left marriage. According to the Jabalpur family counseling centres, the share of harassed husbands was 70% among complainants as per data recorded between 2013 and 2014. About 4,500 husbands are missing from family court records in the region. A local stops the police from going after men who have left marriage and become sadhus.

False rape cases

Between 2001 and 2012, the number of reported rape cases rose from 16,075 to 24,923, however the conviction rate fell from 40.8% to 24.2%. Some men's rights activists point to the low convict rates and have claimed that the lack of a penalty for false cases has encouraged false cases. However, compared to other countries like Sweden, UK and France, India has a much higher conviction rate.

Atit Rajpara, co-founder of Men's Rights Association, has pointed to the low conviction rate in rape cases and argued that most of them are false. Amit Deshpande of Save India Family Foundation has said that several presentations were made to the Justice Verma Committee to include a misuse clause to prevent false cases, but the requests were ignored.

On 29 July 2014, The Hindu newspaper reported that it had carried out a 6-month investigation in New Delhi. The report said that two-third of the total cases filed in the preceding year involved consenting couples, with the parents accusing the boy of rape. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 1636 FIRs were filed in New Delhi in 2013. In the same, 583 cases came before New Delhi's six district courts. In 123 cases, the complaint did not appear before the court or turned hostile. 460 cases were fully argued in the courts. 174 cases involved eloped couples or allegedly eloped couples. 109 cases involved breach of promise of marriage. 133 cases resulted in conviction with a conviction rate of 23%.

On 6 August 2014, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa, during a debate in the state assembly said that of the 953 cases registered as rape cases in the state, only 332 cases were found to be actual rape cases. 425 of them were filed after an affair on mutual consent ended on bad terms and 83 were filed when the man refused to marry the woman. 53 were cases of molestation which had been exaggerated. In October 2014, Delhi Commission of Women (DCW) released some data, according to which of the 2,753 complaints of rape filed between April 2013 and July 2014, 1,287 cases were found to be genuine. The main motivation behind the false cases was found to be revenge to settle personal scores.

Notable verdicts

In August 2010, the Delhi High Court dropped a rape case against a London-based expatiate. The court concluded that the case was filed by his live-in partner to prevent him from leaving the country, after he refused to marry her.

On 16 November 2010, the Delhi High Court rejected a man's request to drop a false rape case against him. The court said that it was to ensure the accuser, a female police employee, is prosecuted for the false case. The women had reached an out-of-court settlement with the defendant.

In May 2013, the Delhi High Court said that some women were using false rape cases for personal vendetta, harassment, extortion and forcing men to marry them. The court was hearing the bail petition of a man who had been in a relationship with an woman for 2 years. The woman filed a rape case the man rejected the proposal to marry her. The court granted the bail.

In May 2013, the Supreme Court of India said that pre-marital sex on the promise of marriage is cheating or deception, not rape. The court was appealing of a man had been sentenced by a lower court in Haryana to seven years of imprisonment. The man had been accused of rape by a women after he did marry her after having an affair with her. The verdict had also been upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Supreme Court said that the women 19 years old at the time of affair was sufficiently mature to understand the implications of her consent and order the release of the man. The man had already served 3 years by this time.

In August 2013, the Bombay High Court observed filing a rape case after a relationship terminated had become a trend. It added that women filing such false cases should be prosecuted. The court was hearing a bail petition from a man who entered a relation with a woman whom he met on the internet. The woman filed a rape case when he married some other woman instead of her. The court approved the bail.

In December 2014, the Bombay High Court said that having sex while in relation before marriage and then not following through on a promise to marry does not amount to rape. The Court said that every individual case should be examined to see the women consciously made such a decision and there should be no single rule of thumb. The Court was hearing a case in which a woman had become pregnant after a sexual relationship and the man had refused to marry her. The Court said it was the woman's decision to keep the baby if she chooses and she may secure the child's rights by other legal means.

In March 2015, the Gujarat High Court said that a breach of promise to marry is not rape case. The court was hearing a case where a woman had charged her live-in partner of rape after he left her after a year without marrying her. She filed a report when she finds out he was marry someone else.

In March 2015, the Delhi High Court said that live-in relationships cannot be kept outside the ambit of the rape laws. The court was listening to a Public Interest Litigation that proposed that only cases of cheating should be allowed in case of live-in relations. The petitioner had pointed out that majority of cases result in acquittal.

Suicide

Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) has claimed that the suicide rate of married men is almost twice that of women, due to them being "unable to withstand verbal, emotional, economic and physical abuse" from their wives. SIFF has pointed to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data to show that suicide in married men is much higher than in married women. Kumar V. Jahgirdar, president of Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP), has attributed the suicides among married men on family stress. CRISP has said that in a study conducted by it, it was found that married men committed suicide mainly due to misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Domestic Violence Act of 2005.

Mithun Kumar, a researcher at SIFF, has said that police don't take any action even if the suicide note of a man states that he was tortured by his wife and in-laws, but in case of a woman's suicide her husband's family is taken into custody without investigation. However, in a 2012 report published by the Million Death Study researchers, it was stated that since suicide in India is a crime, suicides are under-reported, especially suicides of young married women. Because in case of the suicide of a married women, usually the husband and his family are held responsible if the suicide has occurs within seven years of marriage. Sometimes suicides are mis-categorised as accident deaths.

Sexual harassment laws

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is not gender neutral. Rajesh Vakahria, a member of SIFF, has pointed out the bill was originally gender neutral until Ministry of Women and Child Development and some NGOs intervened and changed the name. He said that it was an outdated concept to consider that only women suffer from sexual harassment.

Khasi tribe

The Khasi tribe in Meghalaya state is matrilinear. The children take the mother's surname. The sons have no rights to property. A family without an heir usually adopts a girl. After marriage, men move into their wives' houses. Their way of life is protected under the Khasi Social Custom of Lineage Act of 1997. The men in this tribe have started a men's liberation movement called Syngkhong Rympei Thymmai (Home Hearth Restructured). It was founded on 14 April 1990. A previous movement started in the early 1960s died out due to lack of support; one of the group's public meetings was reportedly disbanded when a large group of angry women—some of them bearing knives—chased the attendants away. The current movement claims to have 2000 members. According to them, due to a lack of responsibility or sense of purpose, boys are dropping out of schools, men are resorting to drugs and alcohol and dying before reaching middle age. The movement seeks, among other things, to have children take their fathers' names and to end the system of property inheritance that favors female offspring.

In an interview with Sally Howard, the author of The Kama Sutra Diaries, one activist described his own experience marrying into a Khasi family, "When I married I left my father and mother's house to go to my wife's kin house...When a woman does this, as women do all over India, she can adapt: women are subtle and softly spoken...But men cannot adapt. I could not adapt. As husbands of khaduh we feel we are sidelined; as if all we are there for is to breed." His proposed remedy involves overturning the matrilineal order was, "We of Syngkhong Rympei Thymmai say that men must rule. We are more emotionally stable. We are not hysterical like women. And we say that unless men become the first sex we will go extinct!"

Organisations

• Save Indian Family Foundation
• All India Front Against Persecution by Wives (Akhil Bharatiya Patni Atyachar Virodhi Morcha)
• My Nation
• Child's Right and Family Welfare
• Purush Hakka Sanrakshan Samiti
• Gender Human Rights Society
• Save Family Foundation
• Confidare Research: A Bangalore-based organisation.
• Men's Rights Association
• Karnataka Rajya Purushara Rakshana Samithi: A Karnataka-based organisation that is opposing abuse of marriage laws.
• Purusha Commission: An organisation based in Odisha which is demanding a State Commission for Men.

See also

• Dowry law in India
• Domestic violence
• Feminism in India
• Men's rights movement
• Men's spaces
• Save Indian Family (SIF)
• Nisha Sharma dowry case, a 2003 case which resulted in an acquittal in 2012

References

1. "Help! My wife beats me". The Telegraph. 13 December 2005. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
2. ^ "Nagging wife? Help is at hand!". The Indian Express. Press Trust of India. 11 November 2005. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
3. ^ "Harassed husbands seek a pro-men law". Gulf News. 16 November 2006. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
4. ^ "This Pune samiti fights for the rights of men". DNA India. 20 November 2012. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
5. "Marry shades of grey!". Deccan Herald. 6 April 2014. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
6. "Hope for victimised husbands". Rediff. 26 December 2003. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
7. "History of Save Indian Family". Save Indian Family. Retrieved 5 June 2014.
8. "International Men's Day on Nov. 19". The Hindu. 17 November 2007. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
9. Jason Thompson (2010). International Men's Day: The Making of a Movement. Soul Books. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-646-54972-9. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
10. "Men force review of 'biased' dowry law". The Telegraph. 6 July 2008. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
11. "Men's groups want 'offensive' ad off air". DNA India. 16 September 2008. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
12. ^ "Mujhe Meri Biwi Se Bachao..." Mumbai Mirror. 6 January 2010. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
13. "Now a Men's Rights Organisation Supports Shoaib". Outlook India. 5 April 2010. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
14. "Shoaib Malik finds support from an NGO". The Indian Express. 6 April 2010. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
15. "15,000 men to boycott all Aamir's films until he apologises!". The Times of India. 2 December 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
16. "Soon, husbands to pay salary to their housewives!". Zee News. 4 September 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
17. "Homemakers to get salaries according to new govt proposal". India Today. 9 September 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
18. "Don't consider monthly income to housewives as salary: Krishna Tirath". The Economic Times. 11 September 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
19. "Housewives in India may receive salaries from husbands". The National (Abu Dhabi). 20 September 2012. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
20. "Salary to the wife? Men's groups fume over proposed law". Rediff. 10 September 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
21. "Facebook posts trigger row". The Hindu. 21 April 2013. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
22. "THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010" (PDF). PRS Legislative Research. PRS India.
23. "Protest against Marriage Bill". The Statesman. 26 August 2013.
24. "Men's rights group holds pro-Ganguly rally". The Hindu. 22 December 2013. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
25. "Men wear sarees in Kolkata to protest against Marital Amendment Bill". India Today. 16 February 2014. Retrieved 8 January 2014.
26. "Aamir Khan is maligning Men by telling lies, says Save Indian Family Foundation". The Times of India. 21 March 2015. Retrieved 28 March 2015.
27. "A mobile app to save 'men in distress'". Business Standard. 6 June 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
28. ^ "Helpline for men launched". The Hindu. 4 May 2014. Retrieved 10 June 2014. Cite error: The named reference "helpline" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
29. "Now, a 'men-ifesto' for male rights". 11 January 2014. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
30. "Men's rights organisation set to float a political party". DNA India. 2 February 2014. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
31. "Men's rights group urges citizens to use NOTA". The Hindu. 29 March 2014. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
32. "Men's rights activists put condition for their vote". The Times of India. 4 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
33. "Vote for Samajwadi Party or press Nota". The Times of India. 17 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
34. ^ "Dowry wars: The big issue that has India divided". The Independent. 2 March 2011. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
35. "Dowry law making us the victims, says India's men's movement". The Guardian (UK). 13 December 2007. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
36. "Activists highlight rise in suicides among married men". The Hindu. 28 May 2014. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
37. Section 497 of Indian Penal Code (PDF). 1860.
38. Krishna Deo Gaur (2002). Criminal Law and Criminology. Deep & Deep Publications. p. 617. ISBN 978-81-7629-410-2. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
39. Barbara Crandall (16 February 2012). Gender and Religion, 2nd Edition: The Dark Side of Scripture. A&C Black. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-4411-4871-1. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
40. Savitri Goonesekere (6 May 2004). Violence, Law and Women's Rights in South Asia. SAGE Publications. p. 137. ISBN 978-81-321-0387-5. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
41. "Misuse forces a review of dowry law". Hindustan Times. 28 February 2011. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
42. ^ "Dowry cases: panel for amending IPC section". The Hindu. 17 November 2003. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
43. ^ "No arrests under anti-dowry law without magistrate's nod: SC". The Times of India. 3 July 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
44. ^ "Anti-dowry law to be amended, will allow room for compromise". The Times of India. 14 May 2015. Retrieved 14 May 2015.
45. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (Supreme Court of India 2014) ("As many as 3,72,706 pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal."), Text.
46. "Pro-women laws being misused". The Times of India. 26 June 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
47. "Inside the new 'legal terrorism': How laws are being abused to settle personal scores". Mail Online. 30 November 2013. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
48. "Now, Is That Malevolence?". Outlook India. 3 December 2007. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
49. ^ Ramesh, Randeep (13 December 2007). "Dowry law making us the victims, says India's men's movement". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 4 April 2014.
50. ^ "Malevolence for women's law: Men go to PM against female 'terrorist activity'". The Telegraph. 27 October 2006. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
51. "Protection forum for mothers-in-law launches its city chapter". The Indian Express. 6 September 2010. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
52. "When bad bahu 'harasses' saas". The Times of India. 8 March 2008. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
53. "Tihar overflowing with dowry cases: How infamous Delhi jail is crammed to bursting with women accused of harassment". Daily Mail. 6 July 2014. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
54. ^ "Marital woes: Many NRIs shun India". The Hans India. 24 January 2015. Retrieved 16 February 2015.
55. "India: Laws & culture". Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (Canada). Retrieved 16 February 2015. A number of Canadians have been involved in marital fraud and dowry abuse in India. Some cases involve misuse of India's Dowry Prohibition Act. This law, which was enacted to protect women by making dowry demands a crime, is sometimes used to blackmail men through false allegations of dowry extortion. Individuals facing charges may be forced to remain in India until their cases have been settled or to compensate their spouses in exchange for the dismissal of charges. To avoid such problems, register your marriage in India along with a joint declaration of gifts exchanged, and consider a prenuptial agreement as well.
56. "India: Special Circumstances". Bureau of Consular Affairs (US). Archived from the original on 3 October 2005. Retrieved 16 February 2015. A number of U.S.-citizen men who have come to India to marry Indian nationals have been arrested and charged with crimes related to dowry extraction. Many of the charges stem from the U.S. citizen's inability to provide an immigrant visa for his prospective spouse to travel immediately to the United States. The courts sometimes order the U.S. citizen to pay large sums of money to his spouse in exchange for the dismissal of charges. The courts normally confiscate the American's passport, and he must remain in India until the case has been settled.
57. "Q&A: Indira Jaising, Additional Solicitor General". Business Standard. 31 October 2010. Retrieved 8 January 2015.
58. Indira Jaising (18 July 2014). "Without sympathy or suspicion". The Indian Express. Retrieved 8 January 2015.
59. "Suicide to save tortured men". The Telegraph. 24 July 2010. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
60. Anita Rao; Svetlana Sandra Correya (2011). Leading Cases on Dowry. Socio Legal Information Cent. p. 295. ISBN 978-81-89479-73-2. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
61. "Dowry law is a shield, not an assassin's weapon: court". The Hindu. 22 June 2005. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
62. "Amend dowry law to stop its misuse, SC tells govt". 17 August 2010. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
63. "Law Commission wants dowry law toned down". The Times of India. 21 January 2012. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
64. ^ Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (Supreme Court of India 2014), Text.
65. "No automatic arrests in dowry cases, says SC". The Hindu. 3 July 2014. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
66. Pallavi Polanki (4 July 2014). "Activists on SC ruling: Why single out dowry harassment law as case of misuse?". First Post. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
67. "False complaints to be punished". Navodaya Times. 23 November 2014. Retrieved 26 November 2014.
68. "Women's organisations not happy with the Supreme Court directive on anti-dowry law". DNA India. 4 July 2014. Retrieved 8 January 2015.
69. "Women Misusing India's Anti-Dowry Law, Says Supreme Court". Wall Street Journal. 3 July 2014. Retrieved 8 January 2015.
70. "Govt drops plan to amend Dowry Act". The Times of India. 13 December 2014. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
71. "10% of dowry cases false, government plans changes in law". The Times of India. 22 March 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
72. "Men's forum opposes anti-dowry law". The Times of India. 3 April 2015. Retrieved 12 April 2015.
73. "Maneka against dilution of anti-dowry law". The Times of India. 23 March 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
74. ^ "Push for shared parenting – Activists for law to make joint custody must in broken homes". The Telegraph. 17 August 2014. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
75. "Divorce dads fight for time with kids". Deccan Chronicle. 22 June 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
76. "Movement protecting men's rights launched". The Hindu. 5 September 2009. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
77. ^ "India may opt for shared child custody". The Times of India. 11 November 2014. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
78. Pramila Pandit Barooah (1 January 1999). Handbook on Child, with Historical Background. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-81-7022-735-9.
79. "India's Doubting Fathers and Sons Embrace DNA Paternity Tests". The New York Times. 16 August 2013. Retrieved 8 December 2014.
80. "Estranged fathers demand better access to their children". The Hindu. 20 June 2011. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
81. "In search of an MBA in Fatherhood". The Times of India. 14 September 2012. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
82. "Wife gets divorce from nagging husband". BBC News. Delhi. 30 April 2003. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
83. "'No alimony for wife earning well'". DNA India. 22 September 2008. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
84. "Unemployed man can't be forced to pay alimony: HC". The Indian Express. 27 August 2010. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
85. "Man's assets not to be considered for alimony, rules High Court". The Hindu. 4 September 2014. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
86. "What makes a live-in 'legal'? Supreme Court explains". DNA India. 21 April 2010. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
87. "Woman Quitting Job Wilfully Not Entitled to Alimony: HC". Outlook India. 1 June 2012. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
88. "In a first, HC orders joint custody of child". Bangalore Mirror. 16 September 2013. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
89. "Child custody case: Six months with father, six months with mother, Karnataka HC says". The Times of India. 27 September 2013. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
90. "Rajya Sabha approves bill to make divorce friendly for women". The Indian Express. 26 August 2013. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
91. "Men's rights groups to protest Marriage Amendment Bill". The Hindu. 31 July 2012. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
92. "Hope of share in inherited assets for wife". The Telegraph. 17 July 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
93. "Men's rights activists oppose amendment to marriage law". The Times of India. 8 August 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
94. "Seeking 'equality' with women, men protest marriage law bill". Deccan Herald. 19 August 2012. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
95. "Men's rights groups sore at marriage laws bill". Hindustan Times. 16 February 2014. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
96. "Bill weathers 'anti-men' cry". The Telegraph. 27 August 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
97. "Shared disadvantage: about shared parentage system in India". Deccan Chronicle. 27 November 2014. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
98. "When husbands are victims of domestic violence". The Times of India. 2 February 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
99. "Demand to include men's issues in family health survey". The Times of India. 23 May 2014. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
100. ^ "Over One Lakh Suicides in India Every Year, Says Report". NDTV. 3 July 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
101. "Now, a bill to safeguard men to be discussed in RS". Rediff. 12 October 2012. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
102. "Domestic Violence Act can be used against women too: HC". DNA India. 2 May 2013. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
103. ^ "Men new 'victims' of domestic violence". Hindustan Times. 4 November 2006. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
104. "Men have rights too! Aggrieved men put up a fight". Zee News. 2 June 2012. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
105. "Number of battered husbands in Jabalpur on the rise". The Times of India. 15 February 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
106. "Conviction rate fell from 41% to 24% in 12 years". The Times of India. 11 September 2013. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
107. ^ "Cry Rape". OPEN. 24 August 2013. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
108. "Why Rape Seems Worse in India Than Everywhere Else (but Actually Isn't)". Time (magazine). 8 November 2013. Retrieved 27 July 2015.
109. "India's Men's Rights Group". The Wall Street Journal. 9 September 2013. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
110. "The many shades of rape cases in Delhi". The Hindu. 29 July 2014. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
111. "Fake Sex Abuse Complaints Aplenty". The New Indian Express. 7 August 2014. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
112. "Rape cases up 25%, CM says figures inflated". The Times of India. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
113. "Delhi Commission for Women concerned with rise of false rape charges". India Today. 6 October 2014. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
114. "53% rape cases filed between April 2013 and July 2013 false: Delhi Commission of Women". DNA India. 4 October 2014. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
115. "'Live-in is just a 'walk in, walk out relationship'". The Hindu. 10 August 2010. Retrieved 3 December 2014.
116. "Woman to face trial for lodging false rape case: Delhi high court". DNA India. 16 November 2010. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
117. "Women using rape laws for vengeance, Delhi high court says". The Times of India. 26 May 2013. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
118. "Consensual sex with intention to marry is not rape: Supreme Court". NDTV. 21 May 2013. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
119. "Women filing false rape cases should be prosecuted: HC". Deccan Herald. 1 August 2013. Retrieved 28 June 2014.
120. "Pre-marital sex not shocking, every breach of promise to marry is not rape: Bombay HC". The Times of India. 28 December 2014. Retrieved 29 December 2014.
121. "Breach of Marriage Promise by Partner Is Not Rape: Gujarat HC". The Indian Express. 27 March 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
122. "Breach of promise to marry by partner is not rape: Gujarat High Court". DNA India. 27 March 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
123. "Can't Keep Live-In Relationships Outside Purview of Rape: Delhi High Court". NDTV. 8 March 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
124. "Distribution of Suicide Victims by Marital Status during 2014" (PDF). National Crime Records Bureau. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
125. "Married men twice as likely to commit suicide than married women: Report". The Times of India. 26 July 2015. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
126. Vikram Patel; Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige; Lakshmi Vijayakumar; J S Thakur (2012). "Suicide mortality in India: a nationally representative survey". The Lancet. 379 (9834): 2343–2351. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
127. "Yawning gaps in yet to be notified Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act". Zee News. 30 November 2013. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
128. "Make workplace harassment laws gender neutral, demand NGOs". The Times of India. 26 November 2012. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
129. "Son rises in the east". The Telegraph. 10 April 2010. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
130. ^ "It's a woman's world". The Hindu. 8 March 2013. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
131. "Love and lust in India". The Telegraph. 15 December 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
132. ^ "For tormented hubbies, how to survive IPC 498A". DNA India. 17 February 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
133. "Parting Shot". The Telegraph. 4 April 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
134. "Men are gradually becoming vocal about sufferings at hands of women". The Indian Express. 20 November 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
135. "Marriage laws abused by women". The New Indian Express. 9 June 2013. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
136. "Seminar on men's rights". The Hindu. 25 July 2012. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
137. "Activists demand State Commission for Men". The Pioneer. 20 November 2013.
138. "On protest path to rock assembly". The Telegraph. 30 November 2013. Retrieved 6 April 2015.

External links

• Save Indian Family Foundation
• Save Family Foundation
• Save Indian Family
• My Nation
• Men’s Rights Association
• Centre for Men's Rights

• Men's movement in India
• Men's rights