Domestic Violence in India: An Empirical Analysis

Harihar Sahoo * and Manas Ranjan Pradhan**

Abstract
Domestic violence is one of the crimes against women which is linked to their
disadvantageous position in the society. Domestic violence refers to violence against women
especially in matrimonial homes. herefore domestic violence is recogni!ed as the significant
"arriers of the empowerment of women# with conse$uences of women%s health# their health
health&seeking "ehaviour and their adoption of small family norm. However an attempt has
"een made to study whether ever married women of reproductive age group in 'ndia view
wife&"eating as justified. 'n addition# the prevalence of "eatings and physical mistreatment
since age () and also in last one year are used as the dependent varia"les. he *ational
+amily Health Survey '' data# (,,-&,, which covered ,.#/./ ever married women is used in
the analysis. 0ackground characteristics such as education# age# marital duration# place of
residence# caste# religion# se1 of the head of the household# standard of living# work status of
women# e1posure to mass media and the autonomy of women with respect to decision
making# freedom of movement and access to money are linked to domestic violence. 2n
autonomy inde1 is computed to understand the relationship of women%s autonomy with
domestic violence. 0ivariate analysis is used to e1amine the variation of domestic violence
"y "ackground characteristics. 3ogistic regression is carried out to predict the domestic
violence with the selected independent varia"les. he analysis shows that the women
"elonging to low socio&economic status are more likely to agree with each of the different
reasons justifying wife&"eating. 2gain domestic violence is more among lower autonomy and
women "elonging to low socio&economic status.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
*4entre for the Study of Regional Development# School of Social Sciences 5awaharlal *ehru 6niversity# *ew
Delhi&((..78 9mail: hariharsahoo;gmail.com **'nternational 'nstitute for Population Sciences
<ovandi Station Road# Deonar# Mum"ai&=...--# 9mail: manas;iips.net

(
Introduction and Context
Domestic violence that is any act of physical# se1ual# or psychological a"use# or the threat of
such a"use# inflicted against a woman "y a person intimately connected to her through
marriage# family relation# or ac$uaintanceship is universal and has its root in the socio&
cultural set up of the society. he perpetrators of domestic violence have often "een found to
"e the males and the victims# their se1ual partners. 'nternationally# one in three women have
"een "eaten# coerced into se1 or a"used in their lifetime "y a mem"er of her own family
>Heise et al. (,,,?. 3ooking at the domestic front# staring from @edic age to twenty first
century# women in 'ndia perhaps have never e1perienced e$ual rights and freedom compared
to their male counterparts. he concept of AArdhangini Bhalf of the "odyC seems to "e
restricted only in literatures and have never implemented in practical life. 'n addition to this#
e1tracts from Ramcharitamanas of ulsidas like Dhol, Gauwnaar, Shudra, Pashu aur Nari;
Sakal Tadan ka Adhikari Bdrums# uncivili!ed illiterates# lower castes# animals and women are
all fit to "e "eatenC "esides other indicators like Pardaha system Bhiding the face in veilsC#
Sati system Bself immersion of the lady in hus"and%s pyreC that are su"ject to women onlyD is
a reflection of the history of women%s su"ordinate status. 'n short# it is always the women
who have to "e in the tight rope# su"ject to ine$uality and looked down as an inferior se1.
Staring from childhood to the end of her life she has to "e under the control of father or
hus"and or the son. he su"ordinate status of women com"ined with socio cultural norms
that are inclined towards patriarchy and masculinity can "e considered as an important factor
determining the domestic violence.
'n view of the prevalence as well as the pervasiveness of domestic violence# many
researchers in the past have attempted to assess the situation "esides e1ploring its possi"le
cause and su"se$uent conse$uences for society in general and women in particular. '*439*
>E...?# found it as a pro"lem that cuts across age# education# social class and religion in
'ndia. he same study is of the view that =. percent women had e1perienced at least one form
of physical violence in their married life. Murthy et al. >E..=? is of the view that num"ers of
family mem"ers# type of marriage and hus"and%s education "esides menstrual pro"lems have
significant influence on domestic violence. Fhile many researchers come out with findings
that lifestyle of men such as smoking# alcoholism and drugs promote men to commit
domestic violence >3eonard# (,,ED McGenry et al.# (,,)D Rao# (,,8 and 0hatt# (,,-?# some
are of the view that masculinity and domestic violence are closely interlinked >Duvvury and
*ayak# E../ and Ham"erger et al.# (,,8?. 2gain# persons with lower sociali!ation and
responsi"ility are found to "e the enhancers of the pro"lem >0arnett and Ham"erger# (,,E?.
Studies have also revealed that sons of violent parents >Straus et al.# (,-. and Martin et al#
E..E?# men raised in patriarchal family structure that encourages traditional gender role
>+agot et al.# (,,- and Malamuth et al.# (,,)? are more likely to a"use their intimate partners.
<endered sociali!ation process is what mainly responsi"le for domestic violence >Sahu#
E../?. 2nother study among 6ttar Pradesh men "y <erstein >E...? is of the view that low
educational level and poverty are important reasons for domestic violence. +urther# marriage
at a younger age makes women vulnera"le to domestic violence >Mishra# E...D Hindin# E..E
and Rao# (,,8?. 0esides this# the role of inter spousal relationship# se1 of the children#
ownership of property# dowry# working status# autonomy# religion and caste of the person
can%t "e ignored >Sahu# E../D Swain# E..E and 5ejee"hoy# (,,-?.
Many studies are of the view that violence "y intimate partner most likely undermines the
se1ual and reproductive health of the women. his e1tensive violence has significant harmful
effects like unwanted pregnancy >Ghan et al.# (,,7?# gynecological disorders ><olding and
aylor (,,7? and physical injuries to private parts >Starck et al.# (,8,? "esides large&scale
E
mental health impacts >6*'49+# E...?. 2gain# many of the commonly associated
disordersHpro"lems are found to "e inade$uately addressed >Mitra# (,,,D @isaria# (,,,D Dave
and Solanki# E... and 5aswal# E...?. +urther# as +reedman has written# violence "y hus"ands
against wife should not "e seen as a "reak down in the social order rather than an affirmation
to patriarchal social order >ravers# (,,8?. Similarly# 5ejee"hoy >(,,-? is of the view that not
only wife "eating is deeply entrenched# "ut also people justify it. hus# domestic violence is
simply not a personal a"normality "ut rather it roots in the cultural norms of the family and
the society. 2gain# looking from another angle# it is found that many of the victims of
domestic violence has either refused to name the perpetrator of the assault or attri"uted the
injuries to other reasons >Daga et al.# (,,,?.
'n order to develop effective intervention programme and policy# it is vital to know the
attitude and perception of the women towards the issue in&depth. Most of the studies
conducted in the past are small in nature and reflects the regional picture that might not "e a
true picture of the whole country. 'n view of the a"ove discussion# it seems essential to
understand the women%s viewpoint "esides the assessment of the pro"lem and its correlates at
national level. +urther# in the present world# where gender e$uality and justice have "ecome
the "u!! words# e1amining the domestic violence in the largest democracy of the world
appears worthy for the "etterment of half of its citi!ens.
'n the present paper# an attempt has "een made to study whether ever&married women of
reproductive age group in 'ndia view wife "eating justified on certain situations. 'n addition#
emphasis is there to e1amine the prevalence of "eatings or physical mistreatment since age ()
and in last one year# regionally and also "y "ackground characteristics. Specifically# the
o"jectives of the present paper are as follows:
(. o study the regional variations of women%s view a"out wife "eating as justified# with
specific reasons.
E. o e1amine the differentials of women%s view a"out wife "eating as justified with
specific reasons "y "ackground characteristics.
/. o understand the regional variations of the prevalence of "eatings or physical
mistreatment since age () and the person who "eat or physically mistreated and also
the prevalence of "eatings or physical mistreatment in the last one year >(E months?
preceding the survey.
=. o e1amine the prevalence of "eating or physical mistreatment since age () and also
in the last one year "y selected "ackground characteristics.
). o investigate the determinants of women%s view a"out wife "eating as justified and
also the determinants of prevalence of "eatings or physical mistreatment since age ()
and in the last one year.
Data and Methods
Data from the *ational +amily Health Survey >*+HS& ''? conducted during (,,-&,, has "een
used for the present analysis. he survey provides information on fertility# the practice of
family planning# infant and child mortality# maternal and child health and utili!ation of health
services provided to mothers and children. 'n addition# it provides indicators of the $uality of
health and family welfare services# reproductive health pro"lems# status of women and
domestic violence. he survey follows a multi&stage sampling design to select the eligi"le
woman for the interview. he research findings of the present paper are "ased on a nationally
representative sample of ,.#/./ ever&married women in the age group ()&=, years.
/
he data is analy!ed using SPSS ((.) and our analytical approach includes "oth "ivariate and
multivariate analysis. 'n view of the availa"le literature and data a num"er of varia"les vi!.
age of woman# education of woman# work status of woman# age at first marriage# marital
duration# se1 of living children# e1posure to mass media# women%s autonomy# se1 of the head
of household# religion of the head of household# caste of the head of household# standard of
living of household and place of residence of household have "een included "oth in the
"ivariate and multivariate analysis. he "ivariate analysis e1amines the association "etween
each independent varia"les and dependent varia"les. Multivariate analysis in the form of
logistic regression has "een carried out to assess the statistical significance of the association
and "ecause of the dichotomous nature of women%s view with at least one reason for
justifying a hus"and "eating his wife# "eaten or physically mistreated since age () and "eaten
or physically mistreated in the last (E months.
wo composite indices namely Astandard of living of the household% and Awomen%s
autonomy% have "een constructed as the important determinants of the domestic violence. he
standard of living inde1 >S3'? availa"le in the data itself# has "een constructed "y taking into
account the varia"les & Atype of house%# A ownership of house%# Asource of lighting%# Asource of
drinking water%# Atype of toilet%# Atype of fuel%# Aseparate room for cooking%# Aownership of
agricultural landI# Aownership of irrigated landI Aownership of livestock% and Aownership of
dura"le goods%. he responses are given scores ranging "etween I.I and I=I according to the
intensity in a five&point scale and then were summed up to get the total value of the inde1
>See appendi1 (?. Similarly# the Awomen%s autonomy% inde1 has "een constructed "y taking
into account varia"les like& women%s participation in household decision&making# freedom of
movement and access to money that they could spend as they wish. Fhile computing the
autonomy inde1# specific scores have "een assigned to different responses according to the
intensity in a scale and then were summed up to get the total value of the inde1 >See appendi1
E?. 2fter o"taining the composite inde1 for autonomy# it is divided into three groups of low#
medium and high "y using the formula: >ma1imum&minimum?H/.
Results and Discussion
Regional variations of womens view a!out wife !eating as "ustified
a"le ( reveals the percentage of women who agree with specific reasons for justifying a
hus"and "eating his wife "y states. Surprisingly# a"out three out of every five 'ndian women
agrees with at least one reason of wife "eating as justified. 2mong the women who agrees
wife "eating is justified# the main reason that come out is wife neglects house or children >=.
percent? followed "y wife goes out without telling hus"and >/8 percent?# wife shows
disrespect for in&laws >/= percent? and hus"and suspects wife is unfaithful >// percent?. Jnly
8 percent women agree with natal family does not give money or other items as a reason
justified for wife "eating.
Regional variation shows that Ahus"and suspects wife is unfaithful% is the reason varies from
)) percent in 2ndhra Pradesh to (. percent in 2runachal Pradesh and Fest 0engal. *atal
family does not give money or other items is a main reason in 2ndhra Pradesh while such
pro"lem is very marginal in most northern states like Punja"# Haryana# Himachal Pradesh and
Delhi. 'n *agaland >-. percent? and Manipur >88 percent?# wife shows disrespect for in&laws
is seems to "e the main cause for wife "eating while such reason is very low in Haryana >(.
percent?# Himachal Pradesh >, percent? and Punja" >= percent?. Fife goes out without telling
hus"and as the reason varies from 7, percent in Manipur to five percent in Punja". Similarly
=
north&eastern states like Manipur# Meghalaya# Mi!oram# *agaland wife neglects house or
children is the main reason for wife "eating while such variation is very low in the northern
states like Punja" >) percent?# Himachal Pradesh >- percent?# Haryana >(. percent?# *ew
Delhi >(E percent?. Fife does not cook food properly is the main reason in Maharashtra >=8
percent?# Madhya Pradesh >=/ percent? and 5ammu and Gashmir >=/ percent? while such
reason is negligi"le in northern states like Punja"# Himachal Pradesh and Haryana. he
women who agree with at least one reason are highest in *agaland >,8 percent? followed "y
Manipur >,( percent? and lowest in *ew Delhi >E( percent?.
Differentials of womens view a!out wife !eating as "ustified with specific reasons !y
!ac#ground characteristics
a"le E shows the percentage of ever&married women who agree with specific reasons for
justifying a hus"and "eating his wife "y selected "ackground characteristics. 't is evident
from the ta"le that younger women and those married "efore (- years of age are agreeing
relatively more with at least one reason of wife "eating than the women who doesn%t fall in
those respective categories. 'nter spousal age differences and lower age confounded with
lackHpoor awareness of the marital life may "e the contri"uting factors for the same. Fomen
engaged in agricultural activities are again found to "e agreeing more towards the reasons for
wife "eating than those who are either not working or working in non&agricultural sector.
+urther# agreement with at least one reason and with each of the different reasons for wife
"eating declines sharply with the level of education. his may "e due to the possi"le increase
in awareness of their rights and duties with the higher level of education. 2gain# rural women#
women "elonging to low S3' households and women having low autonomy are having more
accepta"le attitude towards wife "eating than their respective counterparts. More adherence
to traditional gender norms in the rural areas as well as in the low S3' households and
households where women are having lower autonomy may "e the possi"le e1planation.
Regional variations in the prevalence of domestic violence
he reported prevalence of domestic violence since age () as well as in the last one&year
preceding the survey is presented in ta"le /. 't is evident from the ta"le that one out of every
five 'ndian women has reportedly e1perienced "eating or physical mistreatment since they
have turned (). here is su"stantial state wise variation in the proportion of ever&married
women who have "een "eaten or physically mistreated since age (). wo&fifth of ever&
married women in amil *adu and at least one&$uarter of ever&married women in Meghalaya#
Jrissa# 2runachal Pradesh and 0ihar have "een physically mistreated since age (). Himachal
Pradesh with only 7 percent women reporting it reflects a possi"le "etter position women
cherished.
2"out one&fifth of ever&married women in 'ndia are "eaten or physically mistreated "y their
hus"ands and there are interstate variations too in the same. More than one&third of women in
amil *adu have reported their hus"ands as the perpetrator. 2gain# the more than E. percent
of the women in the states like 0ihar# Jrissa# 2ndhra Pradesh and 6ttar Pradesh have
reportedly "een assaulted "y their hus"ands as against of Meghalaya where a majority >E,
percent? "lame other persons for the mistreatment. 0eating "y persons other than the hus"and
or in&laws constitutes a su"stantial proportion in most of the northeastern states as well as in
Delhi# 5ammu and Gashmir and Punja". he percentages of women "eaten in the (E months
preceding the survey varies from less than ) percent in Himachal Pradesh and Gerala to more
than () percent in 0ihar# 2runachal Pradesh# amil *adu and *agaland.
)
Differentials of domestic violence !y !ac#ground characteristics
a"le = represents the percentage of ever&married women who have "een "eaten or physically
mistreated since age () "y "ackground characteristics. Prevalence is also shown according to
the persons who "eat or physically mistreated them K their hus"and# their in&laws or other
persons. he youngest age group >()&(,? shows a lower proportion of "eing "eaten since age
() compared to older women. his is pro"a"ly due to their less time to "e e1posed to the risk
of "eing "eaten since age (). 9ducational level of women makes su"stantial difference of
"eing "eaten or physically mistreated. 'lliterate women have found to e1perience violence
more than three times compared to women who are educated higher secondary or a"ove.
Forkingwomen are found to "e more mistreated than non&working women since age ().
Higher the age at marriage leads to lower the proportion of women to "e "eaten since age ().
Fomen who have "een married for less than five years are less likely to have "een "eaten
than women who have longer marital duration. 't is generally "elieved that not "earing
children and not "earing a son are important reason for wife "eating. However# the findings
show that women with no living child are somewhat less e1perienced violence than women
with living children. he prevalence of violence also varies "y caste of women as (7 percent
of women "elonging to other caste have "een "eaten compared to E8 percent of women
"elonging to S4 and E/ percent "elonging to S as well as J04. his reflects that women
"elonging to higher caste have a lower chance of "eing mistreated since age ().
2gain# the prevalence of domestic violence decreases su"stantially as the standard of living
increases. his is reflected "y the result that E, percent of women with low standard of living
have e1perienced violence compared with E. percent of women with medium and (. percent
of women with high standard of living. 2gain# lower proportion of ur"an women >(8 percent?
has e1perienced violence since age () compared to rural women >E/ percent?. +urther# their
hus"ands "eat majority of women who report "eatings since age (). his is so in case of
almost all the socio demographic characteristics. he proportion of women "eaten or
physically mistreated "y their in&laws or "y other persons is too small to allow a meaningful
discussion of differentials "y women%s "ackground characteristics.
3ooking at the prevalence of "eating or physical mistreatment in the last (E months preceding
the survey# it is clear that one out of every (. women have reportedly e1perienced it. 2ge of
the women# education of the women# age at marriage of the women# autonomy of the women
and standard of living of the household shows a inverse relationship with occurrence of
"eating as with increase in the a"ove mentioned indicators shows a decreasing trend in the
"eating or physical mistreatment. 2gain# as e1pected# the prevalence is found less in female&
headed households and women residing in ur"an areas than their respective counterparts.
Determinants of womens view a!out wife !eating as "ustified and also the determinants
of domestic violence
a"le ) reveals the odds ratios of women%s view in justifying a hus"and "eating his wife and
women%s e1perience with "eatings or physical mistreatment. 2fter controlling the effect of
other varia"les women in the older age group >=.&=,? are , percent less likely to agree with at
least one reason for justifying a hus"and "eating his wife compared to the youngest age group
of ()&(, years. Higher the educational level leads to lower the pro"a"ility for justifying at
least one reason. his is amply clear from the result that women with higher secondary and
a"ove educational level are =) percent less likely for justifying at least one reason compared
7
to illiterate women. herefore# educational level of women is one of the main determinants of
justifying at least one reason for hus"and "eating his wife. Fomen engaged in agricultural
activities are more likely for justifying one or more reason of wife "eating. 3ower the age at
first marriage# higher is the pro"a"ility of justifying at least one reason.
Fith regard to the se1 composition of living children# those women having only daughter and
"oth son and daughter are (/ and () percent more likely for justifying at least one reason of
hus"and "eating his wife compared to those who do not have any child. +urther# controlling
the effect of other varia"les# women who are not e1posed to mass media are EE percent more
likely for justifying at least one reason. Fith respect to women%s autonomy# medium and
higher category are (( percent and /8 percent less likely to justify at least one reason
compared to low category of women. Similarly# the result also consistent with respect to the
ethnicity and religious categories of women. 't is again found that women with higher
standard of living are less likely to justify at least one reason for "eating than those of low
standard of living. 2gain# rural women are (7 percent more likely for justifying at least one
reason than their ur"an counterparts. his may "e due to the fact that ur"an women are more
aware a"out their rights and duties compared to rural women.
Fith respect to "eaten or physically mistreated since age ()# it is clear that women marrying
"etween (,&E= years are 7 percent less likely of "eing "eaten or physically mistreated since
age () compared to those who marrying "elow (- years of age. 3onger the marital duration
leads to greater the pro"a"ility of "eing mistreated. 't is noticea"le that women who are not
currently married >divorced# separated# disserted or widowed? are more likely than currently
married women to have "een "eaten since age (). 2fter controlling the effect of other
varia"les# rural women are (. percent less likely of "eing "eaten since age () compared to
ur"an women. 9ducational level of women seems to have a negative effect on domestic
violence in 'ndia. Similarly# women from scheduled caste# Muslim community is more likely
of "eing "eaten than their respective counterparts.
Fomen with lower autonomy are more likely of "eing "eaten compared to women of higher
autonomy. hose who are not e1posed to mass media are (- percent more likely of "eing
"eaten than those who have e1posed. Households headed "y female mem"ers are a"out ()
percent less likely of "eing "eaten since age () compared to those household headed "y male
mem"ers. Forkingwomen have a greater likelihood of "eing mistreated than the non&working
women. Fomen from medium and high standard of living are a"out /= percent and 7.
percent respectively less likely of "eing "eaten or physically mistreated compared to low
standard of living. he similar trend also follows in case of women "eing "eaten or physically
mistreated in the last (E months preceding the survey.
Conclusions
he foregoing analysis reveals not only widespread prevalence of domestic violence >E(
percent# since age ()? in 'ndia "ut also the acceptance of majority of ever&married women >)8
percent? to at least one reason for justifying a hus"and "eating his wife. here are again large&
scale interstate differences in the prevalence as well as acceptance of violence among women.
'n addition to this# it is noteworthy to mention that a lot of varia"les like age# education of
women# age at first marriage# ethnic and religious categories# women%s autonomy# e1posure to
mass media# work status of women and standard of living "esides place of residence
contri"ute significantly to the prevalence of domestic violence. *evertheless# it is the
hus"ands who are reportedly the perpetrators of violence showing one reason or another.
8
he e1perience of violence undermines the empowerment women and certainly is a "arrier to
the socio&economic and demographic development of the country. 'n view of the prevalence
of the pro"lem# it is suggested to have programmes that take into account involvement of the
community and especially the males for effective as well as fruitful amelioration of the issue.
't can again "e suggested that education of the girls should "e encouraged# which will
undou"tedly work as deterrent to domestic violence. 2gain# though the present findings are
silent a"out the legal side of the issue# stringent laws against the perpetrators of the violence#
laws giving more rights to the women will always "e "eneficial to cur" the issue. 2s it is
found to "e deep rooted in the socio cultural practices and "oth the perpetrator as well as
victim take it granted# there is need of major transformation in the socio cultural milieu. 'n
order to address the pro"lem# social norms and values towards gender roles should "e
transformed to facilitate the implementation of appropriate and meaningful responses to
domestic violence and ultimately to prevent it from happening altogether.
References
0arnett# J and 3.G. Ham"erger# (,,E. he 2ssessment of Martially @iolent Men on the
4alifornia Psychological 'nventory. @iolence and @ictim. 8:()&EE.
0hatt# R. @. (,,-. Domestic @iolence and Su"stance 2"use. 'nternational 5ournal of
<ynecology and J"stetrics. 7/>Suppl.(?: SE)&/(.
Daga# 2 S.# S. 5ejee"hoy and S. Rajgopal. (,,,. Domestic @iolence against Fomen: 2n
'nvestigation of Hospital 4ausality Records# Mum"ai%. 5ournal of +amily Felfare# =)
>(?: (&((.
Dave 2. and <. Slinky. E.... Special 4ell for Fomen and 4hildren: 2 Research Study on
Domestic @iolence%# in Domestic @iolence in 'ndia E: 2 Summary Report of +our
Record Studies. Fashington D4: 'nternational 4entre for Research on Fomen and
he 4entre for Development and Population 2ctivities.
Duvvury# * and M. 0. *ayak. E../. he Role of Men in 2ddressing Domestic @iolence:
'nsights from 'ndia%. Development. =7>E?: =)&)..
+agot# 0. '.D R.3oe"er and 5. 0. Reid. (,,-. Developmental Determinants of Male to +emale
2ggression. 'n. <.F. Russell >ed.?# @iolence in 'ntimate Relationships. PM2
Pu"lishing 4orp. pp ,(&(.).
<erstein# 3. E.... 'n 'ndia# Poverty and 3ack of 9ducation are 2ssociated with Men%s
Physical and Se1ual a"use of their Fives. 'nternational +amily Planning Perspectives#
E7>(?: ==&).
<olding# 5.M and D. 3.aylor.(,,7. Se1ual 2ssault History and Premenstrual Distress in two
<eneral Population Samples. 5ournal of Fomen%s Health )>E?: (=/&()E.
Ham"erger# 3.GD 5.M.3oreD D. 0onge and D.+.olin. (,,8. 2n 9mpirical 4lassification for
Motivations for Domestic @iolence. @iolence 2gainst Fomen# />=?: =.(&E/.
Heise# 3.# 9lls"erg# M and <ottemoeller# M. (,,,. 9nding @iolence 2gainst Fomen.
Population Reports# Series 3# *o. ((. 0altimore# 5ohn Hopkins 6niversity School of
Pu"lic Health# Population 'nformation Program# Decem"er.
Hindin# 5.M. E..E. Fho is at riskL +actors 2ssociated with 'ntimate Partner @iolence in the
Philippines# Social Science and Medicine. )):(/-)&(/,,.
'nternational 4linical 9pidemiologists *etwork >'*439*?. E.... Domestic @iolence in 'ndia
/: 2 Summary Report of a Multi&Site Household Survey. Fashington# D4:
'nternational 4entre for Development and Population 2ctivities.
'nternational 'nstitute for Population Sciences. (,,-&,,. *ational +amily Health Survey
>*+HS&E? 'ndia.
-
5aswal# S. E.... Health Records and Domestic @iolence in hane District# Maharashtra%# in
Domestic @iolence in 'ndia E: 2 Summary Report of +our Record Studies.
Fashington D4: 'nternational 4entre for Research on Fomen and he 4entre for
Development and Population 2ctivities.
5ejee"hoy# S. (,,-. Fife "eating in Rural 'ndia: 2 Hus"and%s RightL 9vidence from Survey
Data. 9conomic and Political Feekly. //>()?: -))&-7E.
Ghan# M 9.# 5.F. ownsendD R. Sinha and S 3akhanpal. (,,7. Se1ual @iolence within
Marriage. 'n: Seminar. *ew Delhi# Population 4ouncil. Pp /E&/).
3eonard# G.9. and H..0lane. (,,E. 2lcohol and Marital 2ggression in a *ational Sample of
Moung men. 5ournal of 'nterpersonal @iolence. 8>(?: (,&/..
Malamuth# *. MD D. 3in!D 4. 3.HeaveyD <. 0arnes and M. 2cker (,,). 6sing the
4onfluence Model of Se1ual 2ggression to Predict Men%s 4onflict with Fomen: 2
en year +ollow up Study. 5ournal of Personality and Social Psychology. 7,>E?: /)/&
/7,.
Martin# 3.SD G.9.MoraccoD 5.<arroD 2.J.suiD 3.3.GupperD 5. 3.4hase and 5.4.4amp"ell.
E..E. 'nternational 5ournal of 9pidemlogy. /(:)7.&)8E.
McGenry# P.4D . F. 5ulian and S. M. <ava!!i. (,,). oward a 0iopsychosocial Model of
Domestic @iolence. 5ournal of Marriage and the +amily# )8: /.8&E..
Mishra# 5. E.... Fomen and Human Rights. 4hapter ). Galpa! Pu"lications# *ew Delhi.
Mitra# *. (,,,. 0est Practices 2mong Responses to Domestic @iolence in Maharashtra and
Madhya Pradesh%# in Domestic @iolence in 'ndia (: 2 Summary Report of hree
Studies. Fashington D4: 'nternational 4entre for Research on Fomen and he
4entre for Development and Population 2ctivities.
Murthy# M S RD P. <aneshD 5. Srivirajarani and R. Madhusudan. E..=. Pro1imate
Determinants of Domestic @iolence: 2n 91ploratory Study on Role of Menstrual
Pro"lems and 3ife Style of Men%. Demography 'ndia. //>(?: -)&(.).
Rao# @. (,,8. Fife& "eating in Rural South 'ndia: 2 Nualitative and 9conometric 2nalysis.
Social Science and Medicine. ==>-?: ((7,&-..
Sahu# 0. E../.4onte1tuali!ing Domestic @iolence from Fomen%s Perspective: 2 Study in a
Slum 4ommunity in Jrissa. ''PS# M.Phil dissertation >6npu"lished?.
Stark# 9D 2. +lintcraft and F +ra!ier. (,8,. Medicine and Patriarchal @iolence: he Social
4onstruction of Private 9vent. 'nternational 5ournal of Health Services ,: =7(&=,/.
Straus# M.2D R.5.<elles and S. Steinmet!. (,-.. 0ehind 4lose Doors: @iolence in the
2merican +amily. <arden 4ity# *ew Mork. 2nchor Press.
Swain# Suvkant. E..E. 6nderstanding he linkage of 9mployment# 2utonomy and Domestic
@iolence among Married Fomen: 2 comparative study of 6ttar Pradesh and
amil*adu. ''PS# Seminar Paper >6npu"lished?.
ravers# 5.(,,8. Domestic @iolence in 4ultural 4onte1t: 2 Response to +rederick Schiavone.
Department of History. Stony 0rook 6niversity.
6nited *ations 4hildren%s +und >6nicef?. E.... Domestic @iolence against Fomen and
<irls. 'nnocenti Digest *um"er 7. 'nnocenti Research 4entre# +lorence# 'taly.
@isaria# 3. (,,,. @iolence against Fomen in 'ndia: 9vidence from Rural <ujarat%# in
Domestic @iolence in 'ndia (: 2 Summary Report of hree Studies. Fashington D4:
'nternational 4entre for Research on Fomen and he 4entre for Development and
Population 2ctivities.
,
$a!le %: &ercentage of ever married women who agree with specific reasons for "ustifying a hus!and !eating his wife !y states'
India' %(()*((
States Fho agrees with specific reasons Fho agree
with at least
one reason
Hus"and
suspects wife
is unfaithful
*atal family does
not give money or
other items
Fife shows
disrespect for
in&laws
Fife goes out
without telling
hus"and
Fife neglects
house or
children
Fife does not
cook food
properly
2ndhra Pradesh )).= E)./ )/.7 )).= 7,.. E7.E 8,.,
2runachal Pradesh (..E =.- /8.= /..= ==.) E7.E )(.,
2ssam /E.8 -.E =..) /,.= ==.) (E.- 77.8
0ihar E-.= =.. E(.E E=., E).E E..- =8.(
<oa /)., ).( E8.7 /)., =7.) (-.. )8.)
<ujarat E8./ /.) ().E E(./ EE.) ((.7 /7.8
Haryana E..( ..E ,.- (E.= (..E 8.. E7.=
Himachal Pradesh (7.= ..E ,./ -.- -./ /./ E/.8
5ammu =).7 /.8 )/., )-.) 7(.- =E.8 8)./
Garnataka (7.E 7.= /).. //.= =../ E..- )(.(
Gerala E(.7 /.( /,.. /8.- =8.. E).= 7(.-
Madhya Pradesh )... (..E =7.8 =-.) )... =/.. 8E.=
Maharashtra /E.E 7.- )=.= )/.) 7).7 =-.= 8).E
Manipur /=.( /.) 87.7 7,.( -/.E ()./ ,(.=
Meghalaya ==./ (,.8 =-.. 7=.. 8-./ /7.- -7.=
Mi!oram //.= ).= )E.E =E.- 7-.E 8.( -/.=
*agaland ,E.8 (7.8 8,.7 7../ -).. /E., ,8..
*ew Delhi (/.8 ..7 (E.7 ((.7 (../ 8.- E(..
Jrissa /E./ 7., /E.8 /E.( E,., (-., )..7
Punja" (7./ ... =.= =.8 ).( (.- EE.(
Rajasthan /E., =.. E,., /..- /(./ E(.E )(./
Sikkim /8./ /.7 /=.= /E.( =/./ ((.7 7-./
amil *adu (8.E /.( =..) )(.. ),.- EE.( 8E.7
ripura (7.- ).- E(.- (,.( EE.E (=., /-.7
6ttar Pradesh =-.. )./ //.= /,.( /=.) E,.E 7(.E
Fest 0engal (../ E.) ((./ (=./ ().8 7.8 E/..
India +,-. /-) ++-( +/-0 12-2 ,1-/ 0/-.
(.
$a!le ,: &ercentage of ever married women who agree with specific reasons for "ustifying a hus!and !eating his wife !y selected !ac#ground
characteristics' India' %(()*((
Socio demographic
4haracteristics
Fho agrees with specific reasons Fho agree
with at least
one reason
Hus"and
suspects wife
is unfaithful
*atal family does
not give money or
other items
Fife shows
disrespect
for in&laws
Fife goes out
without telling
hus"and
Fife neglects
house or
children
Fife does
not cook
food properly
Age of woman
()&(, /8.( -.) /-.8 =(.8 =/.( E-.- 7(.7
E.&E, /8.( 7.- //., /7.) =..= E=., )7.-
/.&/, /E.8 7.= //.) /7.. /,., E=.( )7.8
=.&=, /(.. 7.) /E.. /).. /8., EE., )=.)
Education of woman
'lliterate /,.E ,.( /8.. =(.( =/.. E,.. 7E..
Primary /(./ ).- /).= /-.) =/.= E).E ),..
Secondary E=.= /.8 /..7 /(./ /7., (,.E )(.(
Higher (=.7 (.= (8., ().= E..= -.( /(.,
3or# status of woman
*ot working /..E =.- E,.8 /(.- /=.E E..) )(.7
2gri. and HH activities =..( ((.E =/.7 =8.7 )/.. /=.- 7,.E
*on&agri. activities E,.= 8.E //., /)., =..- E/.( )).7
Age at first marriage
6p to (- /7.( 8.- /7.) /,.7 =E.- E8./ 7../
(,&E= E/.E /.8 E7.) E8.- /E.( (7.- =7.,
E) and a"ove ().. E.= (,.) E..( E/., ,., /).)
Marital duration
.&= /..8 7.E /E., /).( /8.7 EE.8 )=./
)&, /E.7 7.) //.E /).) /,., E=.) )7.7
(. and a"ove //.7 7., /=.E /8.( =..7 E).E )8.8
*ot currently married /.., -.) /).. /-.. =(., E=., )).7
((
Cont- $a!le ,-
4ex of living children
*o child /E.- 8.= /=.. /7.( /-.E E=.( )7..
Sons only /.., 7./ //.) /).E /-., E/.= )=.,
Daughters only /..8 7., /E.8 /7.. =..( EE.- )).)
0oth //., 7.- /=.E /8.E =..8 E).7 )8.,
Exposure to mass media
91posed /-.8 -.. /).= /,.= =..) E-.- 7..E
*ot e1posed E-.8 )., /E.- /=.7 /,.7 E(.- )=.=
3omens autonomy
3ow /-., -.) /8.8 =(.) =/.E /..= 7(./
Medium /=., 8.( /).. /-./ =..) E).- )-.7
High E).7 ).( E,.8 /..7 /8.( (,.. )(..
4ex of the head of 55
Male //.. 7.- /=.. /7.8 =... E=.8 )7.,
+emale E,.7 7.E /(., /=., /,.E EE., )=.8
Religion of the head of 55
Hindu /E.- 8.. /=.. /7.7 =..E E).E )7.,
Muslim /=.8 )., //.7 /-.( /-.8 E/.E )8..
Jthers E8.8 ).- /(., /(.= /-.- (,./ )/.(
Caste of the head of 55
Scheduled caste /=.) 8./ /=.7 /-./ =(.( E7.. )-./
Scheduled tri"e =..E ((.E =..( =(./ =)., E-.8 7/.=
Jther "ackward caste /=.. 8.7 /7.8 =../ ==.8 E7.8 7E.E
Jthers E-.8 =., E,./ /(.. //., E..- =,.)
4tandard of living of 55
3ow /7.- ,.( /-.( =E.E =).. E,.( 7E.8
Medium /=.= 7.- /).= /-./ =(., E)., ),.E
High EE./ /.. E/./ E/.( E8./ (=.( =(.E
&lace of residence of 55
6r"an E=.8 /., E-.E E,.. /=.. (8.8 =8.=
Rural /).7 8.- /)., /,.E =E.( E8.. 7...
$otal +,-. /-) ++-( +/-0 12-2 ,1-/ 0/-.
(E
$a!le +: &ercentage of ever married women who have !een !eaten or physically mistreated since age %0 and percentage !eaten or physically
mistreated in the past %, months' according to states' India' %(()*((
States 0eaten or physically
mistreated since age ()
0eaten or physically mistreated since age ()
"y
0eaten or physically mistreated in the past (E
months
Hus"and 'n&laws Jther persons
2ndhra Pradesh E/.E E(.E E.- E.( (E.-
2runachal Pradesh E7.= (-.- (.7 (..( (7.E
2ssam ().) (=.( ..- E.= -.7
0ihar E7.7 E=., E.= /.( (-.)
<oa (8., (/., E.= =.. 7.=
<ujarat (..( -.7 .., (.7 ).-
Haryana (/.E (..- E./ /.= ).(
Himachal Pradesh ).- /., (.E (.7 E.(
5ammu EE.. ().= =.- 8.E ,./
Garnataka E(.) (,.8 (.( E.= ,.,
Gerala (..E 8.) ..E /./ /.)
Madhya Pradesh E(.E (,.8 (., (.7 ((.-
Maharashtra (-.( (7.8 E.. E.E 8./
Manipur (,.8 -./ /.8 ,.8 ).7
Meghalaya /(.( E.- .., E-., ,.7
Mi!oram E..( ((.) ... ,.7 ,.)
*agaland (,.. (E.- ..8 8., ().E
*ew Delhi (=.( ,.- (.( ).( 8.7
Jrissa E-., EE., /.. -.. (/.7
Punja" (/.8 ((.8 (./ =.= 7.=
Rajasthan (.., ,.- (.) .., ).=
Sikkim ((.= 7., ..) =.8 8.7
amil *adu =..= /7.. ..) ,.. (7.(
ripura (/.7 ((.E .., E.- -./
6ttar Pradesh EE.= E..- (., E./ (/.)
Fest 0engal (8.7 ().8 (.8 E.= -.8
India ,%-2 %)-) %-) +-% %%-2
(/
$a!le 1: &ercentage of ever married women who have !een !eaten or physically mistreated since age %0 and percentage !eaten or physically
mistreated in the past %, months' according to selected !ac#ground characteristics' India' %(()*((
Socio demographic
4haracteristics
0eaten or physically
mistreated since age ()
0eaten or physically mistreated since age () "y 0eaten or physically mistreated
in the past (E months Hus"and 'n&laws Jther persons
Age of woman
()&(, ().= (E.- (./ /.( ((.)
E.&E, E(.( (-.- (.- /./ (E.=
/.&/, E/.. E.., (., /.. ((./
=.&=, E../ (-./ (.8 E., 8.7
Education of woman
'lliterate E).. E/./ E.( E.7 (=..
Primary E/./ E..) (., /., (..8
Secondary (=./ ((.) (.E /.7 7.-
Higher 8./ =.7 ..) /.E E.=
3or# status of woman
*ot working (7., (=.- (.= E., ,./
2gri. and HH activities E8., E)., E.) /.. (=.=
*on&agri. activities E7.( E/.( E.. =./ (E.E
Age at first marriage
6p to (- EE.- E.., E.. E.8 (E.E
(,&E=
().- (E.- (.( =.E 8.=
E) and a"ove
((.7 -.( ..7 =.8 =.-
Marital duration
.&= (/.. (..( .., /.- -.-
)&, E..8 (-.) (.) /./ (E.,
(. and a"ove E/.. E(.E (., E.8 ((.7
*ot currently married E8.= E=.E =.E =.E 7.-
(=
Cont- $a!le 1-
4ex of living children
*o child (7.E (E., (.- =.E ,.7
Sons only E..) (-.E (.7 /.= ((./
Daughters only
E../ (8., (.7 /.) ((..
0oth
EE.= E..7 (.- E.8 ((.E
Exposure to mass media
91posed E=.. EE./ E.. E.7 (/.,
*ot e1posed (,.. (7.) (.7 /.= ,..
3omens autonomy
3ow E(.) (,.8 E.. E.7 (E.,
Medium E.., (-.8 (.- E., ((.8
High E..8 (-.E (.) /.- -.8
4ex of the head of 55
Male E.., (-.- (.8 /.( ((./
+emale E(.= (-.) E.. /.8 8.)
Religion of the head of 55
Hindu E(.( (,.( (.8 /.. ((.(
Muslim E(.E (,.( E.( E., ((.=
Jthers (-.E (=.) (.7 ).E -.,
Caste of the head of 55
Scheduled caste E8.= E).( E.E /.= ().=
Scheduled tri"e E/.. E..8 (.- /.( (/..
Jther "ackward caste E/.. E..8 (.8 /.7 ((.7
Jthers ().8 (/.7 (.7 E.7 8.-
4tandard of living of 55
3ow E,.( E7., E.E /.= (7.7
Medium E..( (8., (.- /.( (..(
High (..( 8.- (.. E.8 =..
&lace of residence of 55
()
6r"an (7.- (=.E (.) /.7 8.8
Rural EE.) E..= (.- E., (E.(
$otal ,%-2 %)-) %-) +-% %%-2
$a!le 0: Variations in "ustifying a hus!and !eating his wife and womens experience of !eatings or physical mistreatment !y !ac#ground
characteristics: Results of logistic regression analysis
&redictor Varia!les Agree with at least one reason 6eaten or physically mistreated
4ince age %0 In the last %, months
Exp 768 Exp 768 Exp 768
Age of woman
()&(, O
E.&E, ..,= (.()7*** ..,EE
/.&/, ..,7) (..., ..8=/***
=.&=, ..,(** ..-=,*** ..=,7***
Education of woman
'lliterate O
Primary (../8*** (..)8** ..,E)**
Secondary ..--,*** ..8,-*** ..8/E***
Higher ..))/*** ..=-=*** ..///***
3or# status of woman
*ot working O
2gri. and HH activities (.7-,*** (.).E*** (.//E***
*on&agri. activities (./8,*** (.)/)*** (./7)***
Age at first marriage
6p to (- O
(,&E= ..-8E*** ..,/7*** ..,.(***
E) and a"ove ..-EE*** ..,8 ..,8E
Marital
duration
.&= O
)&, (..., (.=7-*** (.=8E***
(. and a"ove ..,-( (.8)(*** (.)-)***
*ot currently married ..,./** E.E=8*** (..==
(7
Contd- $a!le 0-
4ex of living children
*o child O
Sons only (..78** (..7E (.(/=***
Daughters only (.(E,*** (..,=** (.((-**
0oth (.()(*** (../ (..=,
Exposure to mass media
91posed O
*ot e1posed (.E(-*** (.(--*** (..=/
3omens autonomy
3ow O
Medium ..-,E*** ..,/=*** ..,E***
High ..7/7*** ..,E-*** ..-((***
4ex of the head of 55
Male O
+emale ..,87 ..-=7*** ..8=8***
Religion of the head of 55
Hindu O
Muslim (.)77*** (./(-*** (.E8)***
Jthers (.=,)*** (.(88*** (.()7***
Caste of the head of 55
Scheduled caste O
Scheduled tri"e (.)-=*** ..8=E*** ..8E,***
Jther "ackward caste (.E,-*** ..,(,*** ..-))***
Jthers ..,/8*** ..7)=*** ..7/7***
4tandard of living of 55
3ow O
Medium ..,.,*** ..7)8*** ..7/7***
High ..)8(*** ../,,*** ../)=***
&lace of residence of 55
6r"an O
(8
Rural (.(),*** ..,.(*** ..,E=**
4onstant (..8,** ..E=*** ..E.-***
***PPQ...(# **PPQ...)
Appendix %:4tandard of living Index
4l-9o- Varia!le Categories 4cores
( ype of house Pucca
Semi&pucca
Gachha
=
E
.
E Jwnership of house Mes
*o
E
.
/ oilet facility Jwn flush toilet
Pu"licHshared flush toilet
Jwn pit toilet
Pu"licHshared pit toilet
*o facility
=
E
E
(
.
= Source of lighting 9lectricity
GeroseneHgasHoil
Jther source
E
(
.
) Source of drinking water PipeHhand pumpHwell in residence
Pu"lic tapH hand pumpHwell
Jther source
E
(
.
7 Separate room for cooking Mes
*o
(
.
8 Jwnership of agricultural land ) acres or more
E&=., acres
3ess than E acresHacreage not known
*o agricultural land
=
/
E
.
- Jwnership of irrigated land Some irrigated land
*o irrigated land
E
.
, Jwnership of livestock Mes
*o
E
.
(. +uel for cooking 9lectricity
3P<H"iogas
4oalH4harcoalHGerosene
Jther fuel
E
E
(
.
(( Jwnership of dura"le goods 4arHtractor
MopedHscooterHmotorcycleHtelephoneHrefrigeratorHcolour television
0icycleHelectric fanHradioHtransistorHsewing machineH0lack and white televisionHwater pumpH"ullock cartHthresher
=
/
E
(-
MattressHpressure cookerHchairHcotH"edHta"leHclockHwatch (
Appendix ,: Index of 3omen Autonomy
4l-9o- Varia!le Categories 4cores
7A8
(
E

/
=
768
(
E
7C8
Decision Ma#ing
Fhat to 4ook
Jn o"taining heath care
o purchase 5ewelry
Staying with family
&ermission needed
o go to market
o visit relatives or friends
Access to money
(. Respondent
E. Hus"and
/. 5ointly with hus"and
=. Jthers in household
). 5ointly with others in household
(. Respondent
E. Hus"and
/. 5ointly with hus"and
=. Jthers in household
). 5ointly with others in household
(. Respondent
E. Hus"and
/. 5ointly with hus"and
=. Jthers in household
). 5ointly with others in household
(. Respondent
E. Hus"and
/. 5ointly with hus"and
=. Jthers in household
). 5ointly with others in household
.. *o
(. Mes
E. *ot allowed to go
.. *o
(. Mes
E. *ot allowed to go
/
(
E
(
E
/
(
E
(
E
/
(
E
(
E
/
(
E
(
E
/
E
(
/
E
(
(,
( 2llowed to have money set aside .. *o
(. Mes
(
/
E.