Invisible Victims: A Study On Men And Non-Binary Individuals Facing Domestic Violence In India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 frames domestic violence as a gender specific crime. The law intends to safeguard women but it exclude men and non-binary victims who also face abuse inside home. The legislative scheme present a one sided approach where protection orders, residence rights and maintenance are only available for women. In Hiral P. Harsora judgment, the Supreme Court in 2016 struck down the part restricting complaint to only women against adult male relatives. But the structure of the Act still keeps the definition limited to female victims. The problem is more serious in practice. Social perception denies abuse against men, leading to humiliation and silence. This stigma is combined with absence of remedies in statute. Male and non-binary persons face barriers in reporting because police treat their complaint as invalid. The Atul Subhash suicide case showed the tragic outcome when suffering remains unaddressed by law and institution. The research adopt doctrinal analysis with statutory review and case laws, along with empirical studies and NGO data. Comparative study of jurisdictions like UK, Canada and Australia shows gender neutral law which allow all victims to seek restraining orders and support services. These experiences prove the importance of equal protection.It reveal a systemic failure in Indian legal framework. It ignore constitutional mandate under Article 14 of equality and Article 21 of right to life with dignity. The inclusive reform is necessary for real justice. The law has to be reoriented towards protection of every victim without bias.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".