MEN & BOYS • LEGAL AWARENESS

Case Law, Legal Remedies & Due Process for Men

A source-based legal awareness resource covering domestic violence against men, matrimonial criminal proceedings, POSH complaints, constitutional principles, reported judgments and practical referral pathways.

Scope of this pageThis is a legal-information and referral resource, not a substitute for an advocate, court order, police investigation, Internal Committee inquiry or other competent authority. AURA CLARION FOUNDATION does not decide whether an allegation is true or false and does not exercise police, judicial, prosecutorial or statutory powers.

THE CURRENT LEGAL POSITION

Protection, due process and lawful remedies

Indian law contains important safeguards for persons accused in matrimonial and workplace proceedings, including requirements concerning arrest, fair inquiry and access to appellate or constitutional remedies. At the same time, women-specific statutes such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the POSH Act, 2013 have purposes and definitions that must be read exactly as enacted. This page therefore separates documented law from advocacy or policy proposals.

Domestic violence against men

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a women-specific statute: its long title and definition of “aggrieved person” are directed to women victims. It does not create an equivalent stand-alone protection-order regime for an adult male victim.

A man facing violence may nevertheless have remedies under gender-neutral criminal/civil law depending on the conduct: assault or hurt, criminal intimidation, unlawful restraint, property offences, extortion, defamation, damage to property and other applicable offences. The exact provision depends on facts and the law in force when the incident occurred.

Constitutional principles

Article 14: equality before law and equal protection of laws.
Article 15(1): the State shall not discriminate against a citizen on specified grounds including sex.
Article 21: protection of life and personal liberty.
Article 39A: equal justice and access to legal aid.

Constitutional arguments are fact-specific. A constitutional provision does not automatically invalidate a gender-specific protective statute; courts examine the statute, classification, legislative purpose and facts.

SELECTED JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Reported cases providing relief or procedural safeguards

The cases below are selected reported decisions relevant to accused husbands or family members, personal liberty, quashing of abusive proceedings, and fairness in workplace inquiries. They are not a complete list of all Indian cases.

How to read this page: these are selected reported decisions in which courts granted relief or laid down procedural safeguards. They should not be counted as a national “victory total,” and relief in one case does not establish that every allegation in other cases is false. For offences committed after the new criminal laws came into force, BNS/BNSS may apply; older incidents can remain governed by the earlier law.

Case	Court / year	What the court did	Practical significance
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar	Supreme Court, 2014	Set out safeguards against automatic arrest in offences punishable up to seven years, including 498A IPC; required police to apply the statutory necessity test and record reasons.	Supports personal-liberty safeguards. The framework now has to be read with the BNSS for current cases.
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand	Supreme Court, 2010	Proceedings against relatives were quashed where the complaint lacked specific allegations and the record showed the appellants had not lived at the place of the alleged incident.	Specific allegations and individual roles matter; distant relatives should not be mechanically implicated.
Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P.	Supreme Court, 2012	Proceedings were quashed where allegations against the sister-in-law were bald and there was no sufficient legal basis for the offences alleged.	General or omnibus allegations may be insufficient to sustain prosecution against relatives.
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India	Supreme Court, 2018	Modified the earlier Rajesh Sharma directions. The Family Welfare Committee screening mechanism was held impermissible; investigating officers were directed to follow statutory arrest safeguards and the principles in Arnesh Kumar, Joginder Kumar, D.K. Basu and Lalita Kumari.	Do not rely on outdated claims that every 498A FIR must first go through a Family Welfare Committee.
Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar	Supreme Court, 2022	The FIR against the appellants was quashed where allegations against the husband’s relatives were general and omnibus and no specific role was attributed to them.	Useful precedent where relatives are implicated without concrete, individual allegations.
Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand	Supreme Court, 2023	The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s refusal of anticipatory bail in a matrimonial case and directed that the appellant be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.	Reinforces that arrest is not automatic merely because an FIR is registered and that anticipatory bail remains a judicial remedy.
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana	Supreme Court, 2024	The Court quashed matrimonial criminal proceedings where the allegations were vague, general and sweeping, with no specific instances, and found continuation of the proceedings to be an abuse of process.	High Courts retain inherent power to prevent abuse of criminal process; a chargesheet does not by itself remove that power.
Rakesh Walia v. State of NCT of Delhi	Supreme Court, 25 Feb 2025	The Court quashed an FIR after considering the cumulative circumstances and finding the criminal case to be an abuse of process. The order expressly referred to the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 BNSS.	Shows that quashing can remain available where the record demonstrates abuse of process; it is highly fact-specific.

FALSE MATRIMONIAL CASES

What remedies may be available?

1. Before or immediately after an FIR

Obtain the FIR and understand the exact sections invoked.
Preserve messages, emails, call records, medical records, CCTV, travel records, bank records and other lawful evidence.
Where arrest is apprehended in a non-bailable offence, discuss anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS with an advocate.
Cooperate with lawful investigation while avoiding direct intimidation or contact with the complainant.

2. Quashing / abuse of process

A High Court may use Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.
Typical arguments depend on the actual record: no offence made out, allegations are legally insufficient, proceedings are barred, or continuation is an abuse of process.
Quashing is discretionary and fact-specific; an allegation being disputed does not automatically make an FIR “false”.

3. Trial-stage defence

Challenge the prosecution evidence through the ordinary criminal process.
Seek discharge/acquittal where legally available on the facts and procedural stage.
Maintain a chronology and documentary evidence rather than relying on social-media allegations or public pressure.

4. Action concerning a demonstrably false case

Where evidence supports that a person knowingly made a false criminal charge with intent to injure, an advocate can examine applicable offences, including Section 248 BNS, subject to its statutory ingredients and procedural requirements. Civil remedies such as defamation or malicious-prosecution claims may also be considered where legally maintainable.

A case ending in acquittal or quashing is not, by itself, proof that the original complainant knowingly lied. Intent and the legal ingredients of any counter-offence must be established.

POSH • WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT

When a man is the respondent in a POSH complaint

The POSH Act is a women-protection statute. A male employee can be a respondent to a complaint. The Act contains procedural safeguards and a statutory mechanism concerning malicious or knowingly false complaints, but the threshold is important.

Section 14: false or malicious complaint

Section 14 permits an Internal Committee or Local Committee to recommend action where it concludes that an allegation is malicious, the complainant knowingly made a false complaint, or forged/misleading documents were produced.

Important: the statute expressly says that a mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof need not attract action. Malicious intent must be established through the prescribed inquiry.

Due process and appeal

Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023) stressed properly constituted committees, trained members, adequate opportunity to defend, and natural justice in POSH inquiries. A person affected by the recommendations can examine the statutory appeal route under Section 18 and applicable service rules.

In Bijaya Mishra v. Union of India (2024), the Jharkhand High Court emphasized that an “incorrect” or unsubstantiated complaint is not automatically a “false” complaint for Section 14; the required malicious/knowing-falsity finding matters.

Practical checklist for a respondent: request and preserve the complaint and notices; file a structured written response; identify documents and witnesses; insist on a fair opportunity to present the defence; keep communications professional; record procedural irregularities; and take the statutory appeal/review route promptly with professional advice.

EVIDENCE & REFERRAL

What AURA CLARION FOUNDATION can do

Within its charitable objects, the Foundation can provide awareness, listening, documentation support, referral and access-to-justice information. It cannot investigate like police, determine guilt, conduct a statutory POSH inquiry, act as a court, or guarantee a particular legal result.

Legal literacyDocument checklistProfessional referralRights awarenessConfidentiality-conscious support

Urgent danger: if there is immediate risk of violence, serious injury or self-harm, contact emergency services/police and qualified professionals. For legal representation, consult a licensed advocate. NALSA and State/District Legal Services Authorities may provide free legal services to eligible persons.

PRIMARY SOURCES

Official legislation, judgments and data

Research note: this page was prepared using publicly available Indian legislation, Supreme Court judgments/orders, High Court material and government crime-data portals checked on 30 September 2026. It is not an exhaustive digest and should be legally reviewed before being relied upon in an individual case.