Shalu Nigam

  How the courts failed gender justice  The Basic Premise Behind Domestic Violence Remains Unchallenged Domestic Violence in India is premised on several notions such as  1) The marital relationship is hierarchical and inegalitarian. Women are accorded a low status within a marriage and the family whereas a man is considered a master of the household  2) The husband and his family have the authority to beat the wife besides demanding dowry. Chastisement is a prerogative granted to a husband who can commit violence against a wife in the guise of love and discipline.  3) A violent husband is not made accountable even if he brutally murders the woman. The law grants immunity to violent husbands even if the husband is a drunkard, vile, or criminal.   4) The family is a private realm and no one and not even the law should interfere with the privacy of such an institution. Domestic harmony is prioritized over violence against women.  5) The doctrine of marital unity as propounded by Blacksto

  Family courts uphold family ideologies, not gender justice Demands were made to establish family courts, and the Family Court Act was enacted in 1984. The law provides for specialized forums to deal with ‘matrimonial conflicts’ and not domestic violence. These are designed to adjudicate matters such as divorce, custody suits, maintenance, restitution of conjugal rights, and connected issues. The goal is to make the courts accessible and less intimidating for women through dispensing with lawyers, legalistic jargon, strict rules of procedures, and standards of evidence. These courts depicted mediation as an alternative to the patriarchy-inspired adversary system. This is preferred by many because of its reputation to provide for a better hearing. Yet this system could not aid in reducing violence or enabling justice for women. Studies have shown that the family courts are not free from difficulties like backlogs, the exploitative commercial approach of lawyers, long drawn-out battles,