Wake up to the woes of sexually harassed men!
All
those feminists, who had been screaming over the male atrocities, were
shocked into silence reading the recent reports wherein a 42-year-old
married woman Veera Kalra, a manager at a ready-made garments store, was
booked for sexually harassing her 25-year-old employee Rahul Khandare.
Rahul had recently committed suicide and left a five-page note, blaming
Veera for sexually harassing him and being the main cause behind his
frustration. And this is not a case in isolation. There are other cases,
which have similar undertones. TOI tracks the phenomenon...
Case 1:
Disha Chauhan (name changed), a 25-year-old girl working for a
multinational herbal products company in the city, lured her new male
colleague into a sexual relationship. After luring him into the relationship,
she started urging him on to help her with getting more business and
greater sales numbers, says our source from the police. He obliged and
soon the girl proposed marriage
to the lad. When he agreed to that as well, she told him to help in
increasing her sales incentive from 35% to 50%. The guy invested
heavily, bought the products in large numbers and even diverted many of
his own clients to her. The girl achieved her target, married her senior
and dumped the guy! Totally shocked, the guy initially went into acute
depression, adds the source. Later, he finally gathered the courage to
file a case at the Ajni Police Station for cheating and sexual
harassment.
Case 2: Rachna Bise (name
changed), a 21-year-old married woman, charged her maternal uncle with
attempt to rape, after she went absconding with a male friend of hers
and was found by the cops, whereas the uncle's family has lodged a case
of sexual harassment against her.
Male harassment is a reality
A senior cop (requesting anonymity) says: "Cases regarding women's
sexual harassment and molestation are reported in large numbers, but
sexual harassment of men is also a reality. We get many complaints these
days of this nature, but most of the times, the guys refrain from
filing the FIR. Hence, the number of cases reported remains very less."
Victims suffer psychologically
It's a myth that sexual exploitation hurts women
alone and men remain unscathed, says Investigating Officer R G
Rajulwar, who is handling Disha Chauhan case. He adds, "In this
particular case, the boy, who was exploited and later dumped by her,
became a complete recluse and even contemplated suicide. It was the
never ending support of his family and friends that made him come out of
his shell. So, it is no longer true that exploitation happens on one
particular sex alone."
Butt of myriad jokes
The sad part is that while the psychological trauma faced by the
sexually harassed people of both the sexes remains equal, the men who
report such cases, have to face public ridicule. "When a girl files a
case of sexual harassment, she gets people's sympathy, but when a guy
files such a complaint, he becomes the butt of myriad jokes. That is why
even when they are being exploited blatantly by certain women, they
prefer to bear it in silence, or may take an extreme step like Rahul
Khandare, who committed suicide," said another senior cop, on the
condition of anonymity. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Wake-up-to-the-woes-of-sexually-harassed-men/articleshow/20716412.cms
Some jurists and lawyers, chiding knee-jerk interpretations of the order, especially on social-networking portals, caution that the high court had not attempted to set down terms for a man-woman relationship outside marriage. Far from that. All it said, in fact, was that after a prolonged relationship as partners, a man or woman cannot relieve himself/herself from its consequences and liabilities, on the ground that it had not been registered or solemnised.
Advocate and matrimonial case specialist T K R Sudha, who is also treasurer of the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA), said the order was almost in tune with umpteen orders of the Supreme Court and other high courts on the issue of live-in relationships. "Though matrimonial laws have not been amended adequately to accommodate and address the complexities of live-in affairs, there are apex court rulings which are laws of the land till a specific law is enacted. The soul of the judgment is in line with apex court rulings, only words are different," she said.
However, senior advocate and former high court judge, K Chandru said, "Matrimonial issues must be addressed on case-by-case, facts-by-facts and person-by-person basis," although the presumption of marriage is possible in cases of domestic violence cases, which have a specific provision dealing with household and live-in relationships. But in general, he warns against the tendency to make sweeping statements in family matters. Chandru feels the order is likely to be misunderstood by subordinate courts, which might force people into relationships merely because they have had sexual relations.
"Though perfectly all right when read in the context of the case in hand, certain phrases and words in the judgment do disturb me. Terms such as 'sexual consummation', 'sexual gratification' and 'sexual interaction' are not politically correct in this age. While higher judicial forums have adopted a holistic view of the live-in relationship and tried to maintain a fine balance between a usual marriage and an unusual marriage, this verdict tries to draw a black-and-white portrait," said a senior judicial officer.
Badar Sayeed, former additional advocate-general of Tamil Nadu, felt the court had attached too much value to the sexual aspect of a wedding. While agreeing with Justice C S Karnan's ruling that he had to presume that the parties to the case - Aysha and Ozir Hassan - were wife and husband because there was evidence to show they lived together for about five years and had two children during the period, she said the judge's views on primacy of sexual interaction between the couple as obiter dicta have no force of law.
As for the court's suggestion that either party may approach the family court for declaration of their marital rights, activist and advocate Geetha Ramaseshan said this would open a floodgate of litigation in the family court.
Former city public prosecutor of Chennai M Shahjahan said he was tempted to partly agree with the ruling, but wondered how such a view would square with other matrimonial issues such as right to property and separation. "How will the two living together separate and what will be the terms of separation?" he said. "Can the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC be invoked if the man or women in a live-in relationship or who had 'consummated' their sexual interaction has another parallel relationship? What about partition and property rights?"
Advocate and former special public prosecutor for the human-rights court V Kannadasan said Justice Karnan's order would squarely apply to the case he had handled alone. "It can never become a law, and be a precedent for all cases concerning live-in relationships or where a man of 21 and woman of 18 had 'consummated' their sexual interaction," he said.
Though it appears to have strengthened the right to choose one's own way of life, Monday's order has clearly added to the already tangled web of matrimonial laws and their interpretations.
