A Research On Domestic Violence Against Married Women In Marathawada Region Of Maharashtra

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T17:20:39.529749+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:35.723+00:00

A RESEARCH ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST

MARRIED WOMEN IN MARATHAWADA REGION OF

MAHARASHTRA

Amar Ankushrao Ranjwan, Research Scholar, Department of Law, Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Jhunjhunu (Raj) Dr. Vinod Kumar, Research Guide, Department of Law, Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Jhunjhunu (Raj)

ABSTRACT

Every culture, religion, class, and ethnicity experiences domestic violence. It has remained poorly recognised and hidden despite its pervasiveness. In India, its consequences are more intricate and its severity is far higher. Physical, sexual, psychological, and financial control are all forms of domestic violence. Research on domestic violence is relatively recent in India, despite the fact that violence against women is commonly understood. The prevalence of domestic violence was underreported in many research conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. Aim: To research the extent of violence against married women in the home. Objectives: To determine the categories of domestic violence, the frequency of domestic violence against married women, and the offenders of domestic violence.

Methodology: This qualitative, cross-sectional study was conducted in both rural and urban field practice areas in the districts of Maharashtra, India's Marathawada Region. All married women in each household, aged 18 to 49, were selected and voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. It was possible to question a total of 228 ladies. Results: Overall violence was present in 69. 1% of urban respondents' lifetimes and 59. 0% of rural respondents. Psychosocial and economic violence were the most frequently reported forms of lifetime violence, followed by physical violence, and sexual violence was the least prevalent. The culprits were frequently alleged to be mothers-in-law and husbands. Taking into account the study's findings, it is advised that women's attitudes be changed so they can recognise their rights and live with respect and dignity.

Keywords: Domestic Violence, Physical violence, Psychosocial Violence,

Sexual Violence. 1.

INTRODUCTION

Every nation in the world has a high rate of violence against women, which is also one of the main reasons why women become ill. Domestic abuse is among the most common types of violence against women. The United Nations claims that domestic violence is "the most common form of violence experienced by women globally" and that it can cause women to suffer from severe health issues or even pass away. Domestic violence against women is a widespread occurrence. But in India, its effects are more severe and its repercussions are more complicated. The custom of maintaining seclusion and maintaining the dignity of the home has shielded this violence against women from public view. Women who are victims of domestic violence face several, intersecting forms of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse as well as economic, cultural, and discriminatory prejudice.

Domestic abuse is defined by the World Health Organisation as "the range of sexually, psychologically, and physically coercive acts used against women. " The issue of domestic abuse against women is a complicated one. Members of the natal and marital households also victimise women, in addition to their husbands. Forty-five percent of Indian women report that their husbands have slapped, kicked, or otherwise abused them. India also has the greatest rate of pregnancy-related violence. Half of the women who report experiencing violence are kicked, beaten, or struck when pregnant. Over two-thirds (74. 8%) of victims of domestic abuse have made an attempt at suicide. In India, it is somewhat uncommon to look into domestic violence as a research topic. Attempts have been made since the late 1980s, mostly as a result of the efforts of women's organisations.

Numerous studies have been conducted, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the majority of the research has been hampered by the underreporting of domestic abuse. Because women themselves are unable to recognise certain behaviours of their own husbands and other family members as acts of violence, as well as because they fear retaliation from their spouses, this underreporting may happen intentionally or accidentally. This study sought to determine the prevalence, forms, and offenders of domestic violence in two communities in western Maharashtra: one in an urban area and one in a rural one.

2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted in Marathawada, Maharashtra, in both rural and urban field practice regions. All of the women in each household were chosen from the urban and rural field practice areas using inclusive and exclusive criteria at the time of the survey, and those who willingly agreed to take part in the study were enrolled. 228 of the 246 women who were selected were available for interviews; 105 came from the rural health training centre and field practice area, and 123 came from the urban health training centre. To determine the frequency of domestic abuse, other forms of violence, and the family members who were abusing the women, interviews were conducted.

2.1 Inclusive Criteria

Married women who are permanent residents of Marathawada region and in the age group of

18 to 49 years.

2.2 Exclusive Criteria

Women who are unwilling to participate or who wish to leave the interview process.

2.3 Moral Concern

Before the interview began, the goal of the study was explained to each participant, and their individual informed oral agreement was obtained. Every eligible woman was made aware that they might opt out of the study at any time and that they were not required to respond to any questions. The interviews were conducted in a private setting. Care was taken to ensure that no other family members or members of the community were present during the interviews, which were conducted in a private setting either inside or outside the respondents' homes. Participants received assurances that their answers and participation would remain anonymous.

2.4 Data Collection

Surveys that were semi-structured were used to gather the data. To create a questionnaire appropriate for the study area, the WHO questionnaire and several additional questionnaires were consulted. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to classify the responses to the interviews. The questionnaire asked about demographic information and encounters with

domestic abuse. Women were questioned on a variety of violent behaviours in order to gauge their exposure to domestic violence. Enquiries were made to learn about their experiences with a particular violent incident throughout their lives and in the last 12 months. Through houseto-house visits, all of the eligible women in the research area were contacted. The four main forms of domestic violence physical, psycho-social, economic, and sexual were examined through additional interviews with the women who responded favourably to lifelong domestic violence. Data regarding those who commit domestic violence was gathered.

2.5 Data Analysis Method

SPSS Version 20 was used for the data analysis in order to compute the proportion, odds ratio, and its 95% CI. The significance threshold was set at a p-value of less than 0.05. 3.

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

A total of 228 respondents 53.9% from urban areas and 46.1% from rural ones—were

interviewed for this study. The majority of responders were between the ages of 21 and 30 (44. 0% urban and 43. 4% rural), followed by 31 and 40 (31. 1% urban and 32. 6% rural) in both regions. Nearly one-third (34%) of respondents were illiterate in rural areas, compared to onefifth (19. 9%) in urban areas. Housewives made up nearly two-thirds of the respondents from both areas (64. 6% in the city and 63. 3% in the country). Nearly the same percentage of respondents in rural areas (54. 3%) belonged to the middle class, whereas over half (51. 8%) of respondents in urban areas came from lower socioeconomic classes. Approximately two-thirds (63. 9%) of the 228 respondents reported having encountered some kind of violence, with urban areas reporting higher rates of violence (67. 8%) than rural ones (60. 1%). With OR= 1. 5 and a Confidence Interval of 1. 023 to 2. 213 (p=0.

0375), the lifetime prevalence of overall violence was found to be substantially greater among respondents from urban areas (69. 1%) than those from rural areas (59. 0%). Forty-eight (30. 9%) urban women and forty-three (41. 0%) rural women reported never having experienced violence of any kind. Women in both urban and rural areas were most likely to encounter psychosocial and economic violence during their lifetimes, which was followed by physical violence. Sexual violence,

either by itself or in conjunction with other forms of violence, was the least common. Compared to respondents in rural areas, those in urban areas reported significantly higher lifetime prevalences of economic violence (47. 2%), physical violence (47. 2%), and psychosocial violence (68. 3%) (p=0. 0375, p=0. 0084, and p=0. 0469, respectively). Urban areas had a 2. 229-fold higher chance of experiencing economic violence than rural ones, with a Confidence Interval of 1. 495 to 3. 691. Both communities' respondents reported the least amount of sexual violence, and the difference was not statistically significant. Table 1. Distribution of respondents according to magnitude of various types of violence Violence Type Urban (n=123) Rural (n=105) Period Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Life time: Over all 69. 1 59. 0 Psychosocial 68. 3 59. 0 Physical 47. 2 34. 3 Economical 49. 6 30.

5 Sexual 9. 7 6. 7 Current (since 12 month) Over all 56. 9 47. 6 Psychosocial 55. 3 46. 7 Physical 33. 3 24. 8

Table 2. Distribution of victims according to various typesof violence Violence Type Urban (n=85) Rural (n=62) Period Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Only Physical 1. 2 1. 6 Only Psychosocial 16. 5 27. 4 Only Economical Only Sexual Physical and Psychosocial 7. 1 19. 4 Physical & Economical 1. 2 Psychosocial & Sexual 1. 2 Psychosocial and Economical 11. 8 14. 5 Physical, Psychosocial & 47. 1 25. 8 Economical Physical, Psychosocial & Sexual 2. 4 1. 6 Psychosocial, Economical and 1. 2 Sexual All 10. 6 9. 7 Total The majority of the victims in both regions were dealing with the aftermath of many forms of violence. There were no reports of economic or sexual violence at all. Only one form of violence, such as physical violence (1. 2% in urban areas and 1. 6 in rural ones), or psychosocial violence (16. 5% and 27. 4%), happened in both places infrequently.

However, victims in rural areas reported significantly greater rates of psychosocial violence than those in urban areas (p=0. 025). Victims in rural areas reported considerably greater rates of both physical and psychosocial violence (19. 4%) compared to those in urban areas (7. 1%) (p discernible variation between urban and rural areas. Table 3. Respondents Distribution According to Abusers* Violence Type Urban (n=85) Rural (n=62) Period Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Husband 96. 5 74. 2 Mother-in-Law 44. 7 35. 5 Father-in-law 15. 3 9. 7 Sister-in-law 5. 6 4. 8 Co-sister 5. 6 8. 1 Son 3. 5 1. 6 Daughter in law 3. 5 6. 5 According to the above chart, the majority of victims in both regions were mistreated by their own husbands (96. 5% in urban areas and 74. 2% in rural ones), with mothers-in-law coming in second (44. 7% in urban areas and 35. 5% in rural ones).

Although there was no discernible statistical difference, urban victims reported a higher rate of violence by fathers-in-law than their rural counterparts. Sons, daughters-in-law, co-sisters, and sisters-in-law were also observed to commit violent crimes at about equal rates in both regions. Victims from both rural and urban slums who have experienced psychosocial violence. The most prevalent types included continual arguments, degrading remarks made in front of others, and insults. While doubt and distrust were more prevalent among rural victims, threats were more common among urban victims. The most prevalent practice among victims of economic abuse, whether in urban and rural areas, was to keep financial resources away from the victims. Compared to victims in rural areas, a greater percentage of victims in metropolitan areas experienced economic violence.

By stealing resources, failing to provide for their basic necessities, and extorting money from their parents, the victims were forced to live in poverty.

Both urban and rural victims frequently experienced beatings, slaps, hits, and kicks. On the other hand, urban victims had a much higher rate of choking and weapon injuries. But among victims in rural areas, branding was significantly greater. The majority of victims in both urban and rural areas experienced remarks from their husbands and/or in-laws about the respondents' exposition of body parts. The husbands' incorrect interpretations were observed when the wives occasionally expressed reluctance for sexual relations and when the victims' husbands forced them to have sex. There was minimal sex organ damage discovered. higher for victims in rural areas. However, there was no discernible difference in the prevalence of sexual violence between victims in urban and rural areas.

4. DISCUSSION

In every nation, women experience violence in their homes or on the streets, regardless of their social status, cultural background, or level of political development. Despite the fact that most nations in the world today guarantee women's constitutional rights and human rights, violence against women in the household is deeply ingrained and stems from their poor status. According to a WHO research, violence against women is pervasive in many nations. It is extremely common and varies greatly, from 3. 1% in Georgia to 78% in Ethiopia. Countries with high rates of violence include Bolivia (47. 2%), the Iraqi Kurdistan area (58%), Northwestern Ethiopia (78%), Liberia Montserrado County (54. 1%) and Liberia N County (55. 7%), and Central and Eastern Europe/CIS/Baltic State of Estonia (52%). India is among the nations where domestic violence is most common (51. 8% to 60. 1%).

Women are frequently the victims of violence on the Indian subcontinent. Nepal (31. 3%- 58. 3%) and Bangladesh (14. 5%-48. 2%) have the highest rates of female maltreatment. Numerous studies conducted in India reveal that the rate of violence against women varies, ranging from 3. 8% in the state of Himachal Pradesh to 63. 9% in Mumbai, Maharashtra. West Bengal (51. 8%), Jharkhand (58. 9%), and Orissa (60. 7%) are the states with the highest frequency in India, whereas rural West Bengal has the lowest prevalence at 23. 4%. Comparable to past Indian studies that have documented high rates of violence is the current study's 64. 2% result (68. 7% in urban areas and 59. 3% in rural areas). However, compared to rural respondents, urban respondents reported much greater levels of total violence. This

discrepancy can result from the urban field practice area's current poverty and illiteracy. According to a number of studies, women are viewed as having a lower standing in the family than men. This could be because they are seen as less capable. Women are typically viewed as inferior to their husbands in terms of age, height, and physical attributes. A woman must typically leave her parents' home, alter the family name, and live with her husband and frequently his family. The bride's parents are frequently required to provide the dowry. Because of their sentimental and sensitive nature, as well as the fact that they must manage relationships with a wide range of unfamiliar people in their married household, women are susceptible to a number of stressors in their in-laws' home after marriage. 4. 1 Forms of Violence Physical violence has been reported in Bangladesh (46. 6% to 48.

2%) and the Maldives (18%) on the Indian subcontinent. India: North India: 25. 5% to 40. 3%, Central India: 29. 2% to 44%, Eastern India: 32. 7% to 34. 7%, Rural India: 35. 1% to 40. 3%, Rural Goa: 32. 2%, Uttar Pradesh: 45% Arunachal Pradesh makes up 37. 5% of Northeast India, Assam 36. 7%, Gujarat 25. 7%, and Maharashtra 30. 6% of Western India. Slapping acts of physical violence (98. 8%) are nearly as common as the current study in western Maharashtra, where reports of physical violence are much higher (61. 5%). In India's south, Andhra Pradesh accounts for 35. 0%, Tamil Nadu for 41. 9%, Bangalore for 40. 9%, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh for 30. 9%, and Bihar for 55. 6%. Economic violence, which is the root cause of other forms of violence, has received very little attention in research. Numerous Indian studies have documented cruelty associated to dowers, ranging from 9. 09% to 61. 11%.

However, only 7. 1% of crimes in India related to dowries were reported in 2008. Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Kerala, and Assam have the highest registration rates (11. 5% to 12. 5%), while Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand have the lowest (2. 5% and 2. 8%, respectively). The most frequent forms of psychosocial violence are threats (10. 5% to 75. 55%) and insults (43. 2% to 91. 11%). The most frequently reported sexual violence is forcible sex by the husband (19% to 58. 4%), whereas the most common physical forms of abuse are beating (18. 18% to 65. 2%), slapping (29. 6% to 89. 33%), and kicking (17% to 72%).

4.2 Domestic Violence Offenders

Few studies have documented abusive acts by other perpetrators, such as mothers-in-law,

fathers-in-law, and other family members, whereas the majority of studies have concentrated on violence in intimate relationships. According to the current study, which is consistent with earlier Indian studies, husbands are the most common perpetrators (21.6% to 72.73%), followed by mothers-in-law (20.7% to 40%). The township that serves as the current study area is a semi-urban area that is primarily encircled by rural areas. Because of the continued prevalence of the shared family arrangement, abusers other than spouses are common.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the study's findings, it is determined that many households ignore domestic abuse. Hitting, biting, restraining, slapping, throwing objects, kicking, threatening, controlling, intimidation, stalking, passive/covert abuse, financial hardship, emotional abuse, endangerment, incarceration, stalking, harassment, and more are all examples of domestic violence. In traditional Indian homes, husbands and mothers-in-law are typically the most responsible members of the household and are most frequently implicated in domestic violence against women. In order for women to live their lives with respect and dignity, a shift in attitude must be implemented. Changes in education and raising knowledge of women's rights among the general public and women in particular can help achieve this.

REFERENCES

1. Adhikari R, Tamang J. (2010), “Sexual coercion of married women in Nepal.”, Women’s

Health. 2010; 10:31.

2. AI-Tawil (2012), “Association of violence against women with religion & culture in Erbil

Iraq: a cross-sectional study.”, BMC Public Health. 2012; 1471-2458.

3. Al-Atrushi H.H, et al. (2013), “Intimate partner violence against women in the Erbilcity

of the Kurdistan region Iraq”, BMC Women's Health. 2013; 13:37.

4. Audi C. et al. (2008), “Violence against pregnant women: Prevalence and associated

factors.”, Rev Sande Publica. 2008, Volume-42, Issue-5.

5. Bhattacharya A. (2013), “Domestic violence: A hidden and deeply rooted health issue in

India.”, South East Asia Journal of Public Health. 2013; Volume-3, Issue-1: pp-17-23.

6. Chen P.H, et al (2013), “Costs effectiveness of domestic violence screening in primary

care settings. A Comparis on of 3 Methods”, Journal of Community Medcine and Health Education, 2013; 3:7.

7. Chen P-H, Rovi S, Vega M, Jacobs A, Johnson MS. (2005), “Screening for domestic

violence in apredominantly Hispanic clinical setting.”, Family Practice. 2005; 22: pp-617– 623.

8. Dasgupta A. (2013), “Impact of intimate partner violence & husband’s alcohol use on

married women’s condom & other contraceptive use in rural India”, International Conference on Family Planning Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2013.4

9. Emma Fulu (2007), “Domestic violence and women’s health in Maldives.”, Regional

Health Forum. 2007; Volume-11, Issue-2: pp-25-32.

10. Ghosh B. (2011), “Legal protection against domestic violence in India. Scope &

limitations”, Journal of Family Violence, 2011; Volume-26: pp-319–330.

11. Kamat U. (2010), “A cross-sectional study of physical spousal violence against women in

Goa”, Healthline. 2010; Volume-1, Issue-1: pp-34-40.

12. Kavitha VRS (2012), “Spousal domestic violence of married women in India.”, Journal

of Sociology Soc Anth. 2012; Volume-3, Issue-1: pp-7-13.

13. Khot A, Menon S, Dilip TR. (2004), “Domestic violence: Level, correlates, causes,

impact and response. A Community based study of married women from Mumbai”, Cehat. 2004; 62.

14. Kouyoumdjian (2008), “Risk factors for intimate partner violence in women in the Rakai

Community”, Cohort Study, Uganda, from 2000 to 2009. Public Health. 2013; 13:566.

15. Krishnan S. (2012), “An intergenerational women's empowerment intervention to

mitigate domestic violence: Results of a Pilot Study in Bengaluru”, India: Sage Publications. 2012; Volume-18, Issue-3: pp-346–370.

16. Mahapatro M, et al. (2012), “The risk factor of domestic violence in India.”, Indian

Journal of Community Medicine.2012, Volume-37, Issue-3, pp-153-157.

17. Meekers, et al (2013), “Intimate partner violence and mental health in Bolivia”, BMC

Women's Health. 2013; 13:28.

18. Michael A, Koenig R et al (2006), “Individual and contextual determinants of domestic

violence in North India.”, American Journal of Public Health. 2006, Volume-96, Issue-1, pp-132-138.

19. Mishra A. (2014), “A Cross-sectional study to find out the prevalence of different types

of domestic violence in Gwalior city and to identify the various risk and protective factors for domestic violence.”, Indian Journal of Community Medicine. 2014; Volume-39, Issue- 1.

20. Nelson HD, Christina B, Ian B. (2012), “Screening women for intimate partner violence:

Asystematic review to update the US. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations”, Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012; Volume-156, Issue-11, pp-796-808.

21. Puri M, et al. (2012), “The prevalence and determinants of sexual violence against young

married women by husbands in rural Nepal.”, Research Notes. 2012; 5: 291.

22. Ruikar MM, Pratinidhi AK (2008), “Physical wife abuse in an urban slum of Pune,

Maharashtra.”, Indian Journal of Public Health. 2008; Volume-52, Issue-4: pp-215-217.

23. Sarkar M. (2010), “A study on domestic violence against adult and adolescent females in

rural area of West Bengal.”, Indian Journal of Community Medicine. 2010; Volume-35, Issue-2, pp-311-315.

24. Selic P, et al. (2013), “How many Slovenian family practice attendees are victims of

intimate partner violence? A re-evaluation cross-sectional study report.”, Public Health. 2013; 13: 703.

25. Semahegn A, et al (2013), “Domestic violence and its predictors among married women

in reproductive age in North Western Ethiopia.”, Reproductive Health. 2013; 10:63.

26. Shukla A. K. (2023), “Understanding the Issue of Domestic Violence Against Women in

India: A Critical Analysis”, The International Journal of Advanced Research in Multidisciplinary Science, Eissn-2581-8996, Volume-6, Issue-02, Sept-2023, pp-24-31

27. Sorbo MF, et al. (2013), “Prevalence of sexual, physical and emotional abuse in the

Norwegian mother and child cohort study.”, Public Health. 2013; 13: 186.

28. Stark L, et al. (2013), “Measuring the incidence & reporting of violence against women

& girls in Liberia using the' neighborhood method”, Conflict and Health. 2013; 7:20.

29. Swapna Majumdar (2006), “In India, Domestic violence rises with education”, Internet:

Run Date11/06/03: Download; 2025.

30. The WHO Multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: A practical

guide for research and activities researching violence against women. WHO. 2005; 231- 257;

31. Thompson MP, Basile KC, et al. (2006), “Measuring intimate partner violence

victimisation and perpetration: A compendium of assessment tools.”, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention; Atlanta, Georgia; 2006.

32. Ulla Diez, et al. (2009), “Prevalence of intimate partner violence and its relationship to

physical and psychological health indicators.”, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 2009;Volume-9, Issue-3: pp-411-427.

33. United Nations (2006), “Ending violence against women: From Words to Action.”, United

Nations; 2006.

34. Waltermaurer E, et al. (2013), “An examination of domestic partner violence & its

justification in the Republic of Georgia.”, BMC Women's Health. 2013; 13:44.

35. WHO (2007), “Multi country study on women’s health and domestic violence against

women: Geneva:”, WHO; 2007.

36. Yeoun Soo Kim-Godwin, Jane A. (2009), “Fox: Gender differences in intimate partner

violence & alcohol use among latinomigrant & seasonal farm workers in Rural South eastern North Carolina”, Journal of Community Health Nursing. 2009; Volume-26, Issue- 3, pp-131–142.

37. Yugantar Education society (2011), “A Research study report: A study on nature,

incidence, extent and impact of domestic violence against women in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra”, Planning Commission, Govt. Of India, NewDelhi; 2011

38. Zamorski, Wiens-Kinkaid (2013), “Cross-sectional prevalence survey of intimate

partner violence perpetration and victimization in Canadian military personnel.”, Public Health. 2013; 13: 1019.