Inclusive Justice and Sustainable Legal Protections Against Domestic Violence: A Comparative Study of UK, Canada, and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic violence is a widespread issue that affects individuals across genders, yet in India, male victims remain primarily invisible due to societal stigma, media bias, and legal discrimination. Existing laws, such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005) and Sec. 84 and 85 BNS (Sec. 498A of IPC), exclusively protect women, leaving men without legal recourse. Media narratives reinforce gender stereotypes, portraying men solely as perpetrators, which contributes to underreporting, lack of institutional support, and severe psychological consequences for male victims. This research examines the legal, social, and psychological challenges faced by men and compares India’s gendered legal framework with gender-neutral domestic violence laws in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Furthermore, the study highlights how the exclusion of men from domestic violence protections directly impacts Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3.4 and 3.8, which focus on reducing premature mortality from non-communicable diseases and achieving universal health coverage. High suicide rates among married men, limited access to mental health services, and the absence of dedicated support structures underscore the need for legal reforms, media accountability, and gender-inclusive policies. This paper advocates for gender-neutral domestic violence laws, improved mental healthcare access, and policy reforms to ensure a more just and equitable society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".