Prabhu Thilaak Recent news reports have once again brought to the fore the urgent need to re-examine our approach to gender justice and judicial accountability. In particular, two young men — technology professionals — who took their own lives have raised serious questions. Both were reportedly driven to despair by the weight of judicial proceedings in matrimonial disputes, where maintenance orders were imposed without due consideration of the broader circumstances.

[07/10, 10:08] Sekarreporter: பாலின நீதியை மறு மதிப்பீடு செய்தல்: திருமண தகராறுகளில் நீதித்துறையின் பொறுப்பின் அவசர தேவை
மருத்துவர் பிரபுதிலக் கட்டுரை..
இன்றைய டைம்ஸ் ஆப் இந்தியா நாளிதழிலில்…
[07/10, 10:08] Sekarreporter: Source: The Times of India https://share.google/3xQ0pOXphJLE9tr65
[07/10, 10:08] Sekarreporter: ”
OPEN APP
News
TOI Games
Live Videos
TOI Flashreads
Real Estate
World
City
India
Business
Tech
TOI Newsletters
Cricket
Sports
Entertainment
TV
Voice Of Conscience
Web Series
Life & Style
Education
Speaking Tree

TRENDING
Greater Noida Traffic
I Love Muhammad Protest
Cuttack Violence
Chhattisgarh Accident
Kolkata Journalist Assaulted
Dr Praveen Soni
Reassessing Gender Justice: The Urgent Need For Judicial Accountability In Matrimonial Disputes
CITY
|
Oct 7, 2025, 05:32 IST

Recent suicides by two tech professionals highlight judicial shor…

Prabhu Thilaak Recent news reports have once again brought to the fore the urgent need to re-examine our approach to gender justice and judicial accountability. In particular, two young men — technology professionals — who took their own lives have raised serious questions. Both were reportedly driven to despair by the weight of judicial proceedings in matrimonial disputes, where maintenance orders were imposed without due consideration of the broader circumstances.

These are not isolated events. They reflect a deeper malaise: the combination of judicial delay, gender presumptions, and unequal application of protective laws.

The essence of justice — that no innocent person should suffer in punishing the guilty — is increasingly compromised in matrimonial disputes. Too often, courts presume women to be inherently vulnerable, which results in mechanical application of protective provisions without proper scrutiny, providing immunity for abusive or adulterous spouses solely on the basis of gender.

You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Gold Rate Today in Chennai | Silver Rate Today in Chennai
This is not gender justice; it is gender privilege. It destabilizes families, corrodes institutions and public trust in the justice system.

Much of this problem stems from the archaic, colonial framework of matrimonial laws, which were designed in an era when women were assumed to be weak and dependent. While reforms have occurred, the mindset remains unchanged.

The central question is this: Why, in a reformed democracy, do matrimonial laws still lean disproportionately towards women? Every case must be decided individually — without assumptions or presumptions — lest grave errors be made by judges.

The judicial process itself enables injustice through loopholes, technicalities exploited to claim unearned benefits, procedural lapses that allow crucial evidence to be ignored, deep-rooted biases that swallow real justice altogether.

When left unchecked, wrongdoers of all genders escape consequences, while genuine victims are abandoned. Our laws already recognize that gender cannot be the sole basis of entitlement. For example, section 125 CrPC (maintenance is need-based, not gender-based), section 24 HMA (either spouse who is financially dependent may seek relief) and Rajnesh vs Neha 2020 (courts must consider the financial circumstances of both spouses).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down clear principles. Yet high courts often stray from them without justification. Judicial independence cannot mean judicial indiscipline.

The recent Supreme Court decision cancelling bail granted to actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy murder case is an important reminder. The court sharply criticised the Karnataka High Court for granting bail without considering key evidence such as CCTV footage, forensic reports, and call records — describing it as a case of ‘non-application of mind’.

The Supreme Court stressed that judicial orders must be reasoned, impartial, and evidence driven. This principle has universal relevance: whether in criminal trials or matrimonial disputes, judges cannot rely on assumptions, stereotypes, or mechanical application of gender-centric provisions.

In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court recalled how even its own judges found it nearly impossible to decipher the judgments of a retired Punjab and Haryana high c