WOMEN LAWS IN INDIA
By Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate New Delhi, India LLM (Criminal Law)
In India, women have always been considered the weaker sex in need of protection. Hence, for their upliftment, various laws have been enacted from time to time. These laws give more rights and protection to women from various offences committed against them.
Over time, questions have been raised about the constitutional validity of these laws that favour women as a gender by providing them special rights and legal protections. However, in view of Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, challenges to these laws did not find favour with the courts. The laws were held constitutionally valid and in terms of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India. All enactments and provisions favouring the female gender, made under the laws, are found to be legal.
Offence of Cruelty and Harassment by Husband and his relatives
Section 498A IPC was inserted as an offence by Act 46 of 1983 and was made applicable w.e.f. 25.11.1983. The new criminal laws retain this offence under Section 85 BNS and section 86 BNS. The object was to curb the menace of dowry demand and harassment that was being meted out to married women by her husband and his relatives. The objective was to punish the mischief of dowry demand as well as harassment faced by the wife that was meted out to her to fulfil the greed of dowry or otherwise, which may drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. The offence was made non-bailable and cognizable in nature. This provision was welcomed by all sections of society. However, slowly and gradually, it was realized that this provision is largely being misused by women to settle their personal scores. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs. State of Telangana and Another, has dealt with the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC, 1860 to ascertain whether the same are attracted on vague allegations raised by the wife. The court observed that the contents of the Complaint may be assessed to see if there is any kind of cruelty as contemplated in Clause 1 or if there is any harassment for dowry as contemplated in Clause 2 is made out. If the allegations in the FIR are found to be vague and ambiguous and lack precise allegations which are alleged after the Notice of Divorce, then it may be concluded that the FIR has been lodged as a retaliatory measure intended to settle the score with the husband and his relatives. In such a situation, the quashing of the FIR is justified. Further, in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand while dealing with a quashing petition, the court recognised that Section 498A is being misused by women and held that a “serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of the over-implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases”. The Court observed the common tendency of women to implicate their husband and his immediate relatives due to trivial matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also directed its registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Law Commission and Union Law Secretary so that appropriate steps may be taken in the larger interests of society. In an earlier judgment of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India, the court while examining the constitutional validity of Section 498A IPC due to its misuse, held that more often than not complaints under Section 498A IPC being filed were motivated to settle personal differences, and observed it may become necessary for the legislature to find ways of appropriately dealing with frivolous complaints and to amend, modify or repeal the section 498A IPC.
These judgments are only a few of the many instances where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its crusade to do real justice and to curb the misuse of the law, felt compelled to request the legislature and the Law Commission to firstly curb these false complaints being made and then bring suitable amendments to the legislation to prevent the misuse of Section 85 BNS, erstwhile Section 498A IPC.
Taking note of these requests as well as various representations being received from all corners of society, the Law Commission made recommendations to make the offence compoundable under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, erstwhile Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. In Rajesh Sharma vs State of UP, the Supreme Court also acknowledged the misuse of Section 498A IPC that results in over implication by roping in all the relatives including parents, minor children, siblings, uncles etc on the strength of vague and exaggerated allegations without there being any verifiable evidence of physical or mental harm or injury. This results in harassment and arrest of innocent family members including women and senior citizens. The court, then, proceeded to legislate measures to prevent its misuse. The court took note of the 243rd Report of the Law Commission and recommended the constitution of a Family Welfare Committee under District Legal Service Authorities. Even though, various directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Rajesh Kumar judgement (supra) were set aside and few of the directions were modified by a three-judge bench of Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr vs Union Of India, the common thread that binds all these judgements is that they recognised the misuse of section 85 BNS, erstwhile section 498A IPC and issued directions and recommendations for taking corrective measures to prevent its misuse.
Offence of Sexual Assault and Rape
The offence of rape is now defined under Section 63 BNS, with punishment prescribed under Section 64 BNS. These provisions substantially reproduce the framework that earlier existed under Sections 375 and 376 IPC, though with certain structural refinements. The concept of sexual assault under Section 63 BNS expands upon the earlier concept by recognising multiple forms of penetration holding the absence of consent as paramount. The statute now expressly clarifies that “consent” must be unequivocal and voluntary agreed upon, communicated through words, gestures or other forms of verbal or non-verbal communication, and that the absence of physical resistance does not by itself imply consent.
Over the years, the Indian legislature has repeatedly intervened to strengthen the legal response to sexual violence. These developments were largely driven by the recognition that sexual offences are often under-reported and that traditional evidentiary structures placed an unduly onerous burden upon survivors. Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA), erstwhile Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is one of the most significant evidentiary innovations in this regard as it directly relates to the presumption relating to absence of consent. This provision states that where the woman states in her testimony that she did not consent and sexual intercourse is proved, the court shall presume the absence of consent, subject to rebuttal by the accused. The provision does not eliminate or reduce the prosecution’s burden.
The legislative and judicial architecture surrounding sexual offences is rooted with a clear objective to punish offenders and create a deterrent effect within the society. This objective is closely linked to the sociological realities of the country, where women have historically faced fears and barriers in reporting sexual violence.
At the same time, developments in criminal litigation over the past two decades reveal a complex and sometimes contentious dimension of rape jurisprudence. Courts have increasingly encountered cases in which sexual relations are alleged to have been established on the basis of a false promise of marriage. Such cases typically arise in the context of intimate relationships, including relationships between partners, live-in companions, or individuals who subsequently fall into dispute.
Earlier judicial approaches often examined such allegations through the lens of consent obtained under a misconception of fact, drawing upon principles analogous to those contained in Section 28 BNS (earlier Section 90 IPC). However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has gradually refined the doctrinal test governing such situations. In Prithivirajan v. State, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India established similar principles regarding consensual relationships and promises of marriage. The Court in that case emphasized that the prosecution must prove that the promise of marriage was false from the beginning and was made with the deliberate intention to deceive.
In Uday v. State of Karnataka and Prashant Bharti v. State, the Court emphasised that the mere failure to fulfil a promise to marry does not automatically convert a consensual relationship into rape. The critical inquiry is whether the promise to marry was false from the very inception, made in bad faith with no intention of being honoured.
This principle was articulated with greater doctrinal clarity in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that consent can be said to be vitiated by misconception only when the promise of marriage was false at the time it was made and was intended solely to obtain sexual consent. Conversely, where a genuine relationship subsequently breaks down, the criminal law of rape cannot be invoked merely because the promise to marry was not ultimately fulfilled. Similar reasoning can be seen in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, where the Court reiterated that a consensual relationship between adults cannot retrospectively be transformed into rape solely on the basis of a failed promise of marriage. In Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact."
The Supreme Court has therefore attempted to maintain a careful doctrinal distinction between sexual exploitation through deception and consensual relationships that later deteriorate. This distinction has recently received legislative recognition in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita itself. Section 69 BNS now creates a specific offence where sexual intercourse occurs through deceitful means, including a promise to marry made without intention of fulfilling it, but where the conduct does not otherwise amount to rape. The creation of this separate offence suggests a legislative acknowledgement that the earlier legal framework struggled to accommodate such cases within the traditional rape paradigm.
Despite these doctrinal refinements, the criminal process itself often carries serious consequences for the accused. Given the gravity of rape allegations and the severity of punishment prescribed under Section 64 BNS, the initiation of criminal proceedings frequently leads to arrest, public stigma, and prolonged litigation. In numerous instances, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have exercised their inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where the factual matrix clearly reveals a consensual relationship rather than sexual exploitation. In Samadhan vs The State Of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “This Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation.”
The jurisprudence that has emerged from these cases reflects the judiciary’s attempt to strike a delicate balance. On the one hand, the law must remain sufficiently robust to protect women from sexual violence and coercion, particularly in a social context where gendered power imbalances remain deeply entrenched. On the other hand, criminal law must not be deployed as an instrument for resolving the breakdown of intimate relationships where the essential ingredients of the offence are absent.
The continued challenge for courts therefore lies in preserving the protective intent of rape legislation while ensuring that its application remains faithful to principles of criminal culpability and evidentiary fairness. The evolution of the law in this area demonstrates that while strong legal protections for women are indispensable in the Indian social context, the legitimacy of such protections ultimately depends upon a careful and principled judicial assessment of each case.
CONCLUSION
Women, of course, require protection of the law from the perpetrators of crime who believe that women are their property and treat them like objects. There are several well recognised situations e.g. sexual offences, matrimonial offences, etc where women are necessarily victims. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine vs Union of India is an example of how the Indian Judicial system is going all out to protect the rights of women and any provision of law that is not gender neutral and against the interest of women was struck down. The Supreme Court in this judgement, revisited the provision of Section 497 IPC (Adultery) and held it unconstitutional and ultra-vires on the ground that it does not permit a woman to prosecute her adulterous husband as such it was held to be not gender neutral and discriminatory against women and thus violative of Article 14, 15 & 21 of Constitution of India. This judgement is an example of how rights of women are being protected by the courts in India.
Provisions of section 85 and 86 BNS, erstwhile Section 498A IPC, had a positive impact on the society and brought down the menace of dowry and harassment unto a wife to a large extent amongst the educated and affluent class of people. However, this provision is now being misused more. The misuse of this provision is essentially due to the reason that the law of perjury is rarely invoked by the courts even if they come to the conclusion that the woman had filed false complaints and deposed falsely in court.
Misuse of women laws has taken away the free will of man who may, for variety of reasons, decide to walk out of a relationship, but is unable to do so merely because he had sexual relations with the woman. Thus the courts have come to the rescue of the men who are victims of such misuse of law. Now, to further the cause of justice and keeping in mind the various beneficial laws made for women with general notion that in any relationship either marriage or live in, which is marriage like, woman is always the victim, the women must be protected and she should be granted legal rights under civil law including maintenance as is available to a married woman. The Supreme Court of India, in its aim to do justice, are contemplating to interpret the legal provisions to include women in live in relations to have rights equivalent to a married woman, thereby expanding the scope of law in order to achieve complete justice.
However, it is important to recognise that civil relationship laws must be interpreted more realistically and in terms of the changing social dynamics. At the same time, the law must preserve and promote basic Indian values. Women are being considered equal to men. The society has grown tremendously since 1983 when 498A IPC was introduced. Now it is time, to read down this provision to prevent its misuse. By making the offence bailable or non-cognizable, its misuse can be curtailed to a large extent.
To promote true equality, the law must also recognise that men can also be victims in marriage as well as in live-in relationships. Women have been given rights to have free will and have a change of heart. They may choose to leave their husband or live-in partner or may indulge in infidelity. In such a situation, men have been left remediless and no consequence ensues upon such women. However, the misuse of women centric laws including sections 63 and 85 of the BNS have taken away this free will from men. It is time to think and recognise the factual situation that men also need protection from such women who misuse the laws with impunity.
Over time, questions have been raised about the constitutional validity of these laws that favour women as a gender by providing them special rights and legal protections. However, in view of Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, challenges to these laws did not find favour with the courts. The laws were held constitutionally valid and in terms of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India. All enactments and provisions favouring the female gender, made under the laws, are found to be legal.
Offence of Cruelty and Harassment by Husband and his relatives
Section 498A IPC was inserted as an offence by Act 46 of 1983 and was made applicable w.e.f. 25.11.1983. The new criminal laws retain this offence under Section 85 BNS and section 86 BNS. The object was to curb the menace of dowry demand and harassment that was being meted out to married women by her husband and his relatives. The objective was to punish the mischief of dowry demand as well as harassment faced by the wife that was meted out to her to fulfil the greed of dowry or otherwise, which may drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. The offence was made non-bailable and cognizable in nature. This provision was welcomed by all sections of society. However, slowly and gradually, it was realized that this provision is largely being misused by women to settle their personal scores. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs. State of Telangana and Another, has dealt with the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC, 1860 to ascertain whether the same are attracted on vague allegations raised by the wife. The court observed that the contents of the Complaint may be assessed to see if there is any kind of cruelty as contemplated in Clause 1 or if there is any harassment for dowry as contemplated in Clause 2 is made out. If the allegations in the FIR are found to be vague and ambiguous and lack precise allegations which are alleged after the Notice of Divorce, then it may be concluded that the FIR has been lodged as a retaliatory measure intended to settle the score with the husband and his relatives. In such a situation, the quashing of the FIR is justified. Further, in Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand while dealing with a quashing petition, the court recognised that Section 498A is being misused by women and held that a “serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of the over-implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases”. The Court observed the common tendency of women to implicate their husband and his immediate relatives due to trivial matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also directed its registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Law Commission and Union Law Secretary so that appropriate steps may be taken in the larger interests of society. In an earlier judgment of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India, the court while examining the constitutional validity of Section 498A IPC due to its misuse, held that more often than not complaints under Section 498A IPC being filed were motivated to settle personal differences, and observed it may become necessary for the legislature to find ways of appropriately dealing with frivolous complaints and to amend, modify or repeal the section 498A IPC.
These judgments are only a few of the many instances where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its crusade to do real justice and to curb the misuse of the law, felt compelled to request the legislature and the Law Commission to firstly curb these false complaints being made and then bring suitable amendments to the legislation to prevent the misuse of Section 85 BNS, erstwhile Section 498A IPC.
Taking note of these requests as well as various representations being received from all corners of society, the Law Commission made recommendations to make the offence compoundable under Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, erstwhile Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. In Rajesh Sharma vs State of UP, the Supreme Court also acknowledged the misuse of Section 498A IPC that results in over implication by roping in all the relatives including parents, minor children, siblings, uncles etc on the strength of vague and exaggerated allegations without there being any verifiable evidence of physical or mental harm or injury. This results in harassment and arrest of innocent family members including women and senior citizens. The court, then, proceeded to legislate measures to prevent its misuse. The court took note of the 243rd Report of the Law Commission and recommended the constitution of a Family Welfare Committee under District Legal Service Authorities. Even though, various directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Rajesh Kumar judgement (supra) were set aside and few of the directions were modified by a three-judge bench of Supreme Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar & Anr vs Union Of India, the common thread that binds all these judgements is that they recognised the misuse of section 85 BNS, erstwhile section 498A IPC and issued directions and recommendations for taking corrective measures to prevent its misuse.
Offence of Sexual Assault and Rape
The offence of rape is now defined under Section 63 BNS, with punishment prescribed under Section 64 BNS. These provisions substantially reproduce the framework that earlier existed under Sections 375 and 376 IPC, though with certain structural refinements. The concept of sexual assault under Section 63 BNS expands upon the earlier concept by recognising multiple forms of penetration holding the absence of consent as paramount. The statute now expressly clarifies that “consent” must be unequivocal and voluntary agreed upon, communicated through words, gestures or other forms of verbal or non-verbal communication, and that the absence of physical resistance does not by itself imply consent.
Over the years, the Indian legislature has repeatedly intervened to strengthen the legal response to sexual violence. These developments were largely driven by the recognition that sexual offences are often under-reported and that traditional evidentiary structures placed an unduly onerous burden upon survivors. Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA), erstwhile Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is one of the most significant evidentiary innovations in this regard as it directly relates to the presumption relating to absence of consent. This provision states that where the woman states in her testimony that she did not consent and sexual intercourse is proved, the court shall presume the absence of consent, subject to rebuttal by the accused. The provision does not eliminate or reduce the prosecution’s burden.
The legislative and judicial architecture surrounding sexual offences is rooted with a clear objective to punish offenders and create a deterrent effect within the society. This objective is closely linked to the sociological realities of the country, where women have historically faced fears and barriers in reporting sexual violence.
At the same time, developments in criminal litigation over the past two decades reveal a complex and sometimes contentious dimension of rape jurisprudence. Courts have increasingly encountered cases in which sexual relations are alleged to have been established on the basis of a false promise of marriage. Such cases typically arise in the context of intimate relationships, including relationships between partners, live-in companions, or individuals who subsequently fall into dispute.
Earlier judicial approaches often examined such allegations through the lens of consent obtained under a misconception of fact, drawing upon principles analogous to those contained in Section 28 BNS (earlier Section 90 IPC). However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has gradually refined the doctrinal test governing such situations. In Prithivirajan v. State, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India established similar principles regarding consensual relationships and promises of marriage. The Court in that case emphasized that the prosecution must prove that the promise of marriage was false from the beginning and was made with the deliberate intention to deceive.
In Uday v. State of Karnataka and Prashant Bharti v. State, the Court emphasised that the mere failure to fulfil a promise to marry does not automatically convert a consensual relationship into rape. The critical inquiry is whether the promise to marry was false from the very inception, made in bad faith with no intention of being honoured.
This principle was articulated with greater doctrinal clarity in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that consent can be said to be vitiated by misconception only when the promise of marriage was false at the time it was made and was intended solely to obtain sexual consent. Conversely, where a genuine relationship subsequently breaks down, the criminal law of rape cannot be invoked merely because the promise to marry was not ultimately fulfilled. Similar reasoning can be seen in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, where the Court reiterated that a consensual relationship between adults cannot retrospectively be transformed into rape solely on the basis of a failed promise of marriage. In Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact."
The Supreme Court has therefore attempted to maintain a careful doctrinal distinction between sexual exploitation through deception and consensual relationships that later deteriorate. This distinction has recently received legislative recognition in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita itself. Section 69 BNS now creates a specific offence where sexual intercourse occurs through deceitful means, including a promise to marry made without intention of fulfilling it, but where the conduct does not otherwise amount to rape. The creation of this separate offence suggests a legislative acknowledgement that the earlier legal framework struggled to accommodate such cases within the traditional rape paradigm.
Despite these doctrinal refinements, the criminal process itself often carries serious consequences for the accused. Given the gravity of rape allegations and the severity of punishment prescribed under Section 64 BNS, the initiation of criminal proceedings frequently leads to arrest, public stigma, and prolonged litigation. In numerous instances, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have exercised their inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where the factual matrix clearly reveals a consensual relationship rather than sexual exploitation. In Samadhan vs The State Of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “This Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation.”
The jurisprudence that has emerged from these cases reflects the judiciary’s attempt to strike a delicate balance. On the one hand, the law must remain sufficiently robust to protect women from sexual violence and coercion, particularly in a social context where gendered power imbalances remain deeply entrenched. On the other hand, criminal law must not be deployed as an instrument for resolving the breakdown of intimate relationships where the essential ingredients of the offence are absent.
The continued challenge for courts therefore lies in preserving the protective intent of rape legislation while ensuring that its application remains faithful to principles of criminal culpability and evidentiary fairness. The evolution of the law in this area demonstrates that while strong legal protections for women are indispensable in the Indian social context, the legitimacy of such protections ultimately depends upon a careful and principled judicial assessment of each case.
CONCLUSION
Women, of course, require protection of the law from the perpetrators of crime who believe that women are their property and treat them like objects. There are several well recognised situations e.g. sexual offences, matrimonial offences, etc where women are necessarily victims. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine vs Union of India is an example of how the Indian Judicial system is going all out to protect the rights of women and any provision of law that is not gender neutral and against the interest of women was struck down. The Supreme Court in this judgement, revisited the provision of Section 497 IPC (Adultery) and held it unconstitutional and ultra-vires on the ground that it does not permit a woman to prosecute her adulterous husband as such it was held to be not gender neutral and discriminatory against women and thus violative of Article 14, 15 & 21 of Constitution of India. This judgement is an example of how rights of women are being protected by the courts in India.
Provisions of section 85 and 86 BNS, erstwhile Section 498A IPC, had a positive impact on the society and brought down the menace of dowry and harassment unto a wife to a large extent amongst the educated and affluent class of people. However, this provision is now being misused more. The misuse of this provision is essentially due to the reason that the law of perjury is rarely invoked by the courts even if they come to the conclusion that the woman had filed false complaints and deposed falsely in court.
Misuse of women laws has taken away the free will of man who may, for variety of reasons, decide to walk out of a relationship, but is unable to do so merely because he had sexual relations with the woman. Thus the courts have come to the rescue of the men who are victims of such misuse of law. Now, to further the cause of justice and keeping in mind the various beneficial laws made for women with general notion that in any relationship either marriage or live in, which is marriage like, woman is always the victim, the women must be protected and she should be granted legal rights under civil law including maintenance as is available to a married woman. The Supreme Court of India, in its aim to do justice, are contemplating to interpret the legal provisions to include women in live in relations to have rights equivalent to a married woman, thereby expanding the scope of law in order to achieve complete justice.
However, it is important to recognise that civil relationship laws must be interpreted more realistically and in terms of the changing social dynamics. At the same time, the law must preserve and promote basic Indian values. Women are being considered equal to men. The society has grown tremendously since 1983 when 498A IPC was introduced. Now it is time, to read down this provision to prevent its misuse. By making the offence bailable or non-cognizable, its misuse can be curtailed to a large extent.
To promote true equality, the law must also recognise that men can also be victims in marriage as well as in live-in relationships. Women have been given rights to have free will and have a change of heart. They may choose to leave their husband or live-in partner or may indulge in infidelity. In such a situation, men have been left remediless and no consequence ensues upon such women. However, the misuse of women centric laws including sections 63 and 85 of the BNS have taken away this free will from men. It is time to think and recognise the factual situation that men also need protection from such women who misuse the laws with impunity.