Justice – a word that resonates with hope, fairness, and the promise of rights being upheld. But, as I encountered two deeply troubling cases in Bhachau, Gujarat, it became painfully clear that even with the presence of laws designed to protect individuals, justice is not always straightforward. The reality is that justice often becomes elusive, tangled in a web of fear, societal norms, and complexities that go beyond the legal framework.
In these two cases, both involving young women, the journey for justice remains a struggle, highlighting the immense challenges victims and their families face despite legal protections.
Case 1: Domestic Violence And The Helplessness Of The Victim’s Family
In one case, a 32-year-old woman, POOJA (name changed), was enduring severe domestic violence at the hands of her husband, MAHESH (name changed) since she is married in 2022. Pooja’s situation was one that mirrored countless other stories of domestic abuse in India. The physical violence, verbal abuse, emotional torment, and financial control she experienced left her feeling trapped. Her natal family, aware of the ongoing abuse, was determined to help her break free. They wanted to support her in filing an FIR against her husband and her in-laws, hoping to bring him to justice and stop the cycle of violence.
Pooja took the first step towards justice by reaching out to Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan, seeking help to file the complaint. She shared her painful story with us and was advised on how to approach the police. However, the following day, Pooja returned to us and withdrew her complaint. The reason was simple but devastating – her husband had threatened her with harm, not just to her, but to her entire family, especially her younger sisters.
Loved Ones’ Safety
She feared for her loved ones’ safety and, in that moment, felt helpless and alone. This case sheds light on a profound issue in domestic violence cases: the fear of retaliation. Pooja’s family, though desperate to help, could do nothing more than offer emotional support. Legally, since Pooja is an adult, the law could not force her to pursue the case if she chose not to. This is where the system falters – while the law offers protections, it is often the victim’s own fear and emotional trauma that prevents them from acting on those protections. Even with the availability of Protection Orders, the lack of immediate safety measures for the victim and her family leaves them at the mercy of the abuser.
The legal system, in theory, is designed to provide safety and justice, but the reality is that for many women, it is not just about the law – it’s about survival.
Pooja’s case serves as a stark reminder that justice is not just about making laws; it is about creating an environment where victims can feel safe enough to use those laws without fear of further harm.
KMVS’s Role And Challenges In This Case
KMVS at first took her statement and wrote it down as we proceed. Then we gave her legal advice and asked her if she wants to file an FIR. She agreed to file the FIR with us. Her brother was very supportive. He requested us to help her sister. We decided to go to the nearest Police Station with her next day. But next day when she called to refuse to come and wanted to withdraw her complaint, we advised her not to.
After that, her brother called us and crying for help her sister. He told she was so threatened that she didn’t even listen to her family. We decided to meet her at her house and try to convince her to fight against the violence she faced. We went to her with our psychologist and counsellor and talked to her. She didn’t even want to discuss the case further. She repeatedly said that she just want to close the case. As at the first day she also told us that she wants divorce from him and her husband don’t want to give it, we told her it will help her to get the divorce easily. But as she didn’t want to continue with this we had to stop there. We also told her to come again to us if in case she changes her mind.
Case 2: POCSO And The Dilemma Of Consent vs. Legal Age
In the second case, the legal system was involved in a completely different but equally complex scenario. ADITI (name changed) was in a relationship with a boy from her village, and they had a sexual relationship. The girl was minors at the time, and Aditi’s parents, upon learning of the relationship, filed a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act case against the boy. Although Aditi claimed that the relationship was consensual and that she was in love with him, her parents took the opportunity to file the case, citing the boy’s actions as ‘sexual offence’ due to Aditi’s age. The parents of the girl showed that the girl is 11 years old on papers but it seemed that she is almost 16 or 17 years old. But in India 18 is the actual age for giving consent to sex.
The POCSO Act is designed to protect children from sexual abuse, and under its provisions, anyone engaging in sexual activities with a minor (below the age of 18) is considered committing an offence, regardless of consent.
In this case, Aditi, who was underage at the time, did not have the legal capacity to give consent, even if the relationship was consensual in her eyes. The law, however, provides no room for nuance or the recognition of emotional maturity.
A Parent’s Dilemma
This case presents a dilemma. How do we balance the rights of the child with the reality of consensual relationships with minor? On one hand, the POCSO Act is crucial for protecting children from exploitation and abuse. On the other hand, cases like Aditi’s demonstrate how the law can sometimes be weaponised, used not just for protection, but for punishment of individuals, even in situations where the victim does not feel victimised. The boy, in this case, faces legal consequences for a consensual act, while Aditi, despite her involvement, has no control over the proceedings.
The case is still ongoing, with the boy’s fate hanging in the balance, but it raises uncomfortable questions about the interpretation and application of laws like POCSO Act. Are these laws, which are meant to protect vulnerable children, inadvertently criminalizing acts that might not be as clear-cut as the law suggests? In this case, justice becomes a matter of perspective. Is the boy being punished for a consensual relationship? Or is the law rightly upholding its mandate to protect minors, regardless of their subjective consent?
KMVS’s Role And Challenges In This Case
The girl’s parents came to our safety center without their daughter at very first and told us that the accused boy raped their daughter. They asked for our help to file the complaint to the police. Next day we went to the police station with them and that day we met with the girl there. We wanted to hear the story from the girl that time. So, we started talking with her. She told us that it was totally consensual and she loves that boy. Now it was really challenging for us.
Being a women’s organisation, we should help the girl but here the victim is the boy and the girl’s parents wanted to frame him. Then we were trying to convince the parents to not take this step as it isn’t morally correct. But they didn’t listen to us and file the complaint. We then spoke to the police officer directly to not take the case but he told us if he didn’t take the case it will still be filled against POCSO Act.
The Struggles In Both Cases
Both of these cases highlight a critical issue in our legal system: justice is not always served as it should be, even when laws exist. While we have laws meant to protect victims, the road to justice is fraught with obstacles. First in Pooja’s case, her family desire to see justice done. But as she is an adult and had the legal right to make her own decision, the legally, morally, natural right thing haven’t taken place yet. In Aditi’s case just because she is not legally adult, her parents took the opportunity to frame him.
What should be the legal age for giving consent? Why in a consensual relationship the boy has to suffer? I think marriage and giving consent to sex is not the same thing. We should rethink about it.
Third point is in the case of Pooja, we see that the legal system’s ability to protect is limited by the victim’s willingness to engage. When victims are threatened and manipulated by their abusers, they often withdraw, feeling trapped by their fear. The law cannot protect victims unless they feel safe enough to act on it.

In Conclusion
These cases are a microcosm of the larger issue in India: the gap between law and justice. Having law against crime doesn’t ensure that justice will happen.I was really disappointed when in both cases I couldn’t help the girls. May be it seems like I have savior complex but what else I should think or do.I also have learnt that the fear and shame in marriage are so deep rooted in the girl’s mind that her family also couldn’t assure her.
Where does it come from? Aren’t the society and our families responsible for this? We also need to rethink about our roles as we are an women organisation and only try to help the women when the boy is not truly guilty and what should be our ethics in these kind of cases.
0 Comments