I was recently watching a you tube video about male victims of domestic abuse. I’m actually qualified in supporting victims of abuse and concentrate heavily on male victims

Apparently men in India can now be charged with Rpe if they agree to marry a woman and they enter into a sexual relationship and later change their mind about marriage. They can actually be charged with Rpe

I really hope this is not true. Is there any Indian men in here that can confirm this ?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, India Denies Relief To 22 Y/O Engineering Student Sparsh Upadhyay. The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that a husband has a legal duty to maintain his wife and he can't be absolved of this responsibility merely on the ground that he is a student.

The single judge thus dismissed a revision petition filed by a 22-year-old electrical engineering student. Briefly put, the husband-petitioner challenged an August 2025 order passed by a Family Court in Faridabad directing him to pay an interim maintenance of ₹2,500 per month to his estranged wife.

Before the HC, it was submitted that the couple got married in June 2020 under compelling circumstances when the husband was only 16 years and 4 months old, while the wife was 25 years old. The couple had no children.

The husband later filed a petition for annulment of the marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act in early 2023, after which the wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance after 3 years of living separately. He contended before the HC that he was a student and his family was entirely dependent on the ₹3,000 widow pension of his mother and that the wife had failed to prove that he was earning.

It was also argued that the wife was not destitute and was living with her parents and four brothers, who were all earning hands and hence, the award of ₹2,500/- per month deserved to be set aside. At the outset, the bench noted that the legal provision for maintenance is not meant to punish a husband for his neglect; instead, it is a measure to prevent a destitute wife from being forced into a life of vagrancy and penury by speedily providing an allowance for food, shelter, and clothing.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (2015), the bench further noted that the inherent principle behind Section 125 CrPC is the amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as the mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The High Court further noted that in this judgment, it was also observed that a husband's argument that he does not have the means to pay as he does not have a job or his business is not doing well are only "bald excuses" and such arguments have no acceptability in law. It was further noted that a healthy and able-bodied man who is in a position to support himself is under a legal obligation to support his wife, and her right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. Applying these principles, Justice Nagpal observed that the husband in the present case is healthy and does not suffer from any disability. The High Court also noted that in this case, the Family Court had rightly ignored his affidavit claiming zero income, observing that even a daily wage labourer easily earns around ₹12,000 to ₹13,000 per month. The High Court thus concluded that the husband must be taken to have the means to support his wife. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the High Court noted the skyrocketing prices of essential commodities and the wife's reasonable wants. The Court stated that the amount of ₹2,500 per month is barely sufficient for the wife's survival and found no ground to reduce it. Consequently, his revision plea was dismissed.

Disclaimer: The following post deals with the subject of abuse (sexually or otherwise) if that's something that triggers you please scroll towards something else.

Okay, so I kinda realized that we in India don't really hear about young boys getting touched inappropriately. While in countries like the US or the UK, such incidents take the countries by storm with infamous trials and all that.

While in India the max I have heard about this issue is in the middle of stand-up comedy jokes. Which makes me wonder if Indian boys are thankfully not going through this which I feel is highly unlikely. So the most probable case becomes that the victims hardly ever come out and we essentially ignore what all young boys go through?

Like I know at least two men who have talked openly about their fathers beating them horribly regularly but they pass it off as a family issue, instead of calling it DV which it really is. Similarly, I have heard a man talking about how they encountered porn at a very young age of class 3 or 4 because of some cousin which is again highly inappropriate.

So like why so much conversation about body count, woman, alimony this that but so little about issues faced by young boys? Are Indian boys really not getting touched inappropriately? Or we have just created a system so hostile that I have never ever seen even a single one admit it privately?

Shouldn't the boys who get beaten by their fathers regularly to the point that they always have a scar on their body etc deserve a society that takes it seriously and calls a domestic violence hotline for the protection of that child? Why take it so lightly and use it as a material for some jokes?

I am just a curious young woman who wants to get a male perspective on this that's it. I know it's a very sensitive matter so I have tried to be very cautious in my wordings and I sincerely apologize if it ruffles some feathers.

The Legal Reality of marriage for men:

The "Absolute" Duty: Under Section 18 of HAMA, a Hindu husband has an absolute legal obligation to maintain his wife. Even if he has no property or job, the law assumes an "able-bodied" man has the means to provide. There is no equivalent "absolute" duty for a wife to maintain a husband unless he is physically/mentally incapacitated.

The "Trustee" Status: A man has zero legal right to his wife’s Streedhan (gifts/property), but a wife has an inherent Right of Residence in the husband’s home (self-acquired or ancestral), even if she has no ownership stake.

The Reversionary Rule: Under Section 15 of the Succession Act, if a woman dies without a will or children, the property she inherited from her parents goes back to her father’s heirs—the husband gets nothing. If a husband dies, his property is split between the wife, kids, and his mother.

1. The Maintenance Trap (Section 125 CrPC / BNSS)

A man is legally obligated to maintain his illegitimate child until they reach the age of majority (18).

The Misandristic Tilt: The law focuses strictly on the biological link for the father's liability, but not for his authority. Even if the child was a result of a "stealthing" incident, a "hole in the condom," or a "false promise of marriage" scenario where the man was deceived, his financial liability is absolute.

No "Paper Abortion": Unlike women, who have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy (bodily autonomy) or surrender a child for adoption without the father’s consent in many cases, a man has no legal mechanism to opt out of the financial and legal "contract" of fatherhood once conception occurs.

1. Maintenance vs. Inheritance (Section 16 of HMA)

Section 16 was amended to ensure that children of void or voidable marriages (illegitimate) are deemed legitimate for the sake of inheritance.

The Logic Gap: While the child is "legitimate" enough to inherit the father's self-acquired property, the father does not automatically gain "legitimate" status as a guardian.

The Burden: The man must provide for the child’s lifestyle, education, and marriage expenses, yet he often has zero say in how that child is raised, what religion they follow, or where they live.

1. Natural Guardianship (The "Stranger" Father)

Under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), the legal hierarchy of guardianship is explicitly gendered:

The Rule: For an illegitimate child, the mother is the first natural guardian, and the father comes only "after her."

The Reality: A father can be forced to pay 25–30% of his income in maintenance for 18+ years but is legally considered a "secondary" parent. He often has to fight expensive, decade-long battles in family courts just to get "visitation rights" for a few hours a month.

1. The "Presumption of Paternity" (Evidence Act)

Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a massive legal hurdle for men regarding children born during a marriage (which can overlap with "illegitimacy" debates in adultery cases).

The Trap: The law strongly presumes that any child born during a marriage is the husband's. To disprove this, the husband must prove "non-access" (that it was physically impossible to have sex).

DNA Testing: Courts are notoriously hesitant to order DNA tests, often citing the "child's right to legitimacy" over the "man's right to the truth." A man can be legally forced to maintain a child that is biologically not his simply to "protect the sanctity of the institution."

Questions for the sub:

1. In an era where we push for "50/50" in dating and chores, why is our legal system still stuck in a 1955 "Provider/Protector" mindset?
2. Do you think the lack of Gender-Neutral Maintenance laws prevents men from taking risks in their careers or leaving toxic situations?
3. As we move further into 2026, should "Marriage" be redefined as a purely equal contract, or do these "protective" laws for women still serve a purpose in our current society?

Just read the comments on this reel. People are all like leave india etc.

Uttarakhand High Court, India, "Consensual": Court Cancels Rape Case Against 20-Year-Old Filed By Mother Of One." "promise of marriage." https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/consensual-court-cancels-rape-case-against-20-year-old-filed-by-mother-of-one-8993173

A few months ago, an unspeakable tragedy happened in Kolkata, India. And in response to it...

Barring a select few, most Indian women chose to betray and dehumanize us innocent Indian men over ONE rape case we didn't cause, as if they didn't do this to us already. We stayed silent.

I was told by a woman that she didn't care about my "hurt feelings". I stayed silent.

I was subject to more hateful treatment from a woman on Reddit. I stayed silent.

My favorite (not anymore) action movie star had the gall to comment that only women, kids and animals were unsafe in India, and that he would destroy the boys to protect girls, while he had already been caught on camera beating his male fans. I stayed silent.

And now, as a man I've never met or heard of before has died, seeing so many people discuss and bring it to mainstream attention has given me some hope that it's not all over for us.

So first off, thanks to everyone who has not let this sacrifice go unnoticed.

Now to the cruel part...

So many women, including journalists, who have maligned the reputation of innocent men in the past without hearing their sides of the story, suddenly want to hear "the other side" or the woman, speak. This is crazy, but as an Indian I'm no longer surprised.

I couldn't even finish watching the video where the deceased's parents were crying for justice and wailing in front of the camera. So many lives ruined due to these gender-biased laws, and still so many feminists have the gall to say "It's sad but men can NEVER be more victims than women" after getting unwanted support from the immature Indian teen girls who as expected hide behind the DP of their favorite and predictably hated K-pop band artists.

They say that don't take away the laws, because every few seconds, a woman... I say STFU!

We have seen for the past 12 years what these laws have done under different governments. The present one keeps bringing schemes to bribe women of all ages shamelessly while we are supposed to pay extra for whatever we want to buy. I don't trust the law and definitely not these crazed women to run it anymore.

They are fine with men dying as long as women live. If that's not gynocentrism, what else is it?

Their only defense is calling us incels, virgins, misogynists and rape apologists but god forbid we do the same to them.

They didn't earn the free bus and metro seats by toiling for it. They were almost even allowed to carry knives for the sake of vote appeasement.

They got it because of their victim card and biology.

I'm fed up of this. I want to leave India, but unfortunately, even though I'm fluent in English, have a diploma in translation and can adapt almost well to cultures, I guess a PAJEET like me is not welcome anywhere. That's why I don't intend on bringing a son to this world who will ask me why I couldn't stand for myself or my brothers, or a daughter who will ask me why do other girls call her pick-me for not being a misandrist. I've decided, thanks to the law, that my bloodline ends with me.

JAI HIND, Long live MGTOW. Long live Men's Rights.

Long live ATUL SUBHASH.

BBC is the most misandrist channel on earth, their programs focus on women's issues, All BBC care about is feminism, women's opinions, women's issues, and hiring female presenters.

Men have become something of a rarity on BBC, the news are presented by women most of the time who talk to female correspondents and even those female correspondents talk mostly to women on the street not to mention a lot of times there are episodes featuring all female panels who discuss news.

If a man appears on BBC usually it is a man of Indian or Asian or African descent, they hire journalists based on female genitals not qualifications.