The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a man accused of shooting at his wife, observing that the “notion of patriarchal entitlement” cannot be endorsed as it reduces women to a position of subservience.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while rejecting the bail plea on August 18, said the husband’s defence of having acted in anger “at the spur of the moment” could not justify violence within a marriage.
“The plea of anger at the spur of the moment would amount to legitimising the notion of patriarchal entitlement which reduces women to subservience, and even her refusal to return to a violent matrimonial home is treated as provocation. Holding such a view would be not only regressive but also contrary to the intent of the law,” the court noted.
The bench stressed that domestic violence cases involving an intention to kill must be treated with utmost seriousness. It added that in such instances, the marital relationship should be considered an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred in 2018 when the woman, refusing to return to her abusive marital home, was shot at by the accused. The victim had earlier left the household due to repeated instances of violence, including being beaten when the husband was inebriated.
The accused contended before the court that he fired in a fit of rage after his wife declined to accompany him but claimed he had no intent to kill. However, the court rejected this line of argument, holding that the claim itself was rooted in patriarchal entitlement.
The prosecution further submitted that the accused had a history of violent behaviour and had been jailed on multiple occasions for criminal activities. The woman’s refusal to live with him stemmed from this persistent cycle of abuse.
By dismissing the bail plea, the court reaffirmed that domestic violence must be viewed as a serious offence and that any justification rooted in patriarchal notions of control over women cannot find acceptance under the law.
