A (fairly) balanced report on India's DV law

This is a surprisingly balanced story (in a US newspaper) on India's new DV law.

I sent this mail to Ms Jaisingh who drafted this law, and is quoted in this news item. Let's see if she responds to my mail!

"Dear Ms Jaisingh:

I read your comments on India's DV law in this US
newspaper http://www.centredaily.com/220/story/35314.html This is what you say about the law Despite a few flaws, say lawyers like Ms. Jaisingh, crimes against women have always been dramatically higher than those against men. "The aim of this law isn't to go against men," she says. "It's to stop violence in homes."

Just two questions:

1. If the aim of this law is to really stop violence in homes, why not extend the protection of this law to ALL victims? This law applies only if the victim is a woman and the abuser is a male adult, or a relative of the woman's husband. Even if we assume that incidents of DV against men are few, that does not mean these are acceptable. Also, the definition of DV under this law is so wide (includes insults, ridicule), that it's hard to believe that men are not subjected to such violence.

2. You say that the aim of this law is not to go against men. But this law is heavily loaded against men. Under this law, a woman may file a case against any adult male in her family. The judge can issue a protection order based on mere prima facie satisfaction that DV has taken place, or is likely to take place. Later, the woman may accuse the man of violating the protection order. At that stage, it
becomes a criminal case, and the judge may convict the man based on the sole testimony of the woman and send him to jail for upto one year, or impose a fine of upto Rs. 20,000, or both. So the underlying assumption here is `men are liars, women are truth-tellers'! Under this law, it's very easy for a woman to make a false accusation of verbal or emotional violence, and get away with that. At both stages (civil and criminal), the man can be held guilty of DV based on the sole word of the woman. Is it fair? Doesn't this amount to depriving the man of his personal liberty
without the due process of law?

Hoping against hope that you'll be kind enough to give a clarification on these points.

In my earlier mail, I explained how this law denies protection to male victims. It also denies protection to certain female victims. e.g. If a woman (W) is insulted, ridiculed by her sister (S), this law is no help. Because S is neither an adult male, nor a relative of W's husband. Similarly, a daugher in law may harass her old mother in law, and this law is not applicable. So the protection of this law is given on a very selective basis.