Reverse domestic violence, where males are victims of abuse in marital relationships, is an under-explored phenomenon in the discourse of domestic violence. Historically, societal norms and cultural constructs have framed men as perpetrators and women as victims, often neglecting the experiences of men who face abuse. However, growing evidence suggests that domestic violence is not gender-specific and that men, too, endure physical, emotional, and psychological abuse within their married lives [1, 2].

The prevalence of reverse domestic violence varies globally, influenced by factors such as cultural norms, societal stigma, and legal recognition of male victimization [3]. Studies reveal that men are often reluctant to report abuse due to fear of social ostracism, perceptions of masculinity, and lack of supportive resources [4, 5]. Unlike women, who benefit from extensive advocacy and support systems, men frequently encounter skepticism and institutional barriers when seeking help [6].

Psychological abuse, including manipulation, verbal humiliation, and control over finances, appears to be the most common form of abuse experienced by men in such relationships [7]. Physical violence, although less reported, is also a concern, as men often downplay their victimization due to societal expectations [8]. Emotional abuse, where men face degradation and constant criticism, has been shown to have profound effects on their mental health, leading to anxiety, depression, and feelings of inadequacy [9].

The role of children in reverse domestic violence cases adds another layer of complexity. Men often prioritize their children's welfare, choosing to endure abusive behavior rather than disrupt family stability [10]. These dynamics highlight the need for gender-neutral frameworks to address domestic violence and ensure equitable access to support for all victims.

This paper aims to explore the lived experiences of men subjected to domestic violence, shedding light on their struggles and the societal attitudes that perpetuate their invisibility. It also calls for the recognition of reverse domestic violence as a critical issue, advocating for research, policy interventions, and support systems tailored to male victims.

Study Design

This was a cross-sectional descriptive observational study conducted at a tertiary care hospital. The study aimed to assess the psychosocial factors, marital challenges, and coping mechanisms in males experiencing reverse domestic violence and related marital issues.

Study Population

The study involved 30 married male participants selected based on the following criteria:

Inclusion Criteria:

• Married males aged 20 years and above.
• Individuals experiencing marital discord, reverse domestic violence, or psychological distress related to marriage.
• Participants who provided informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Males with severe physical or psychiatric conditions affecting their ability to complete the study assessments.
• Individuals who refused to participate in the study.

Data Collection

A structured questionnaire, psychometric tools, and interviews were utilized to collect data, which included the following components:

1. Demographics and Socio-Economic Status:

• Participants were categorized by age, socio-economic status, marital status, years of marriage, and presence of conflicts.
• Socio-economic status (SES) was assessed using the Modified Kuppuswamy Scale, which classifies participants into upper, upper-middle, lower-middle, upper-lower, and lower classes.

2. Partner Details
3. Collected information about the partner's age, educational level (uneducated, up to 10th grade, intermediate, or degree), and occupation (housewife or employed).
4. Reason for Consultation

Data on the primary reasons for consultation were collected, such as marital discord, insomnia, sexual dysfunction, or substance dependence.

Psychometric and Psychological Tools

1. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D):

• The HAM-D was used to evaluate depression severity in participants. It consists of 17 items assessing various symptoms like mood, insomnia, anxiety, and somatic complaints.
• Scoring: Scores less than 8 indicate no significant depression.
  • Scores of 8 or higher indicate clinically significant depression.

2. Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT):

• AUDIT, a 10-item screening tool, was used to evaluate participants’ alcohol consumption patterns, dependence levels, and alcohol-related problems.
• Scoring:    0–7: Low-risk drinking.

8–15: Hazardous drinking.

16–19: Harmful drinking.

20–40: Alcohol dependence.

3. Coping Strategies Checklist (CSCL): The CSCL was used to assess coping strategies employed by participants, focusing on:

• Primary Appraisal: Classifies situations as positive or stressful.
• Secondary Appraisal: Evaluates internal coping (confidence, willpower, positivity, or low confidence) and external coping (peer support or help-seeking).
• A mean CSCL score was calculated to quantify the participants’ overall coping skills.

Assessment of Psychiatric and Behavioral Conditions

• Participants were screened for psychopathological symptoms and negative behaviors using clinical interviews and structured assessments.
• The presence or absence of these conditions was recorded.
• The following tables can be used to summarize the psychometric evaluation results in a clear and structured manner, complementing the demographic and clinical data of the study.

Table 1 HAMD (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale)

      Table 2 AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test)

Statistical Analysis

• Demographic and categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages.
• Continuous variables like age and CSCL scores were analyzed using mean values.
• Data analysis was performed using statistical software to ensure accuracy and validity.

The age distribution of the participants highlights that the majority (56.67%) were in the 31–40 years age group, followed by 30.00% in the 20–30 years age group. A smaller proportion (13.33%) belonged to the 41–50 years category, with no participants above 50 years. The mean age of the participants was 35.71 years, reflecting a predominantly middle-aged population.

Table 3            Age

The socio-economic status of the participants, assessed using the Modified Kuppuswamy Scale, shows that 63.33% of the individuals belonged to the upper-middle class, while 36.67% were from the upper class. No participants were categorized as lower middle, upper lower, or lower class, indicating a relatively affluent population.

Table 4            Socio Economic Status

In terms of marital history, most participants (86.67%) were in their first marriage, while a small proportion (6.67%) were in their second marriage or were separated. None of the participants reported being divorced. The mean duration of marriage was 7 years. Regarding conflicts, 43.33% of participants reported marital discord, while the remaining 56.67% reported no conflicts. Additionally, medico-legal cases (MLCs) related to domestic violence were observed in 6.67% of participants, while 93.33% reported no MLC involvement.

Table 5            Marital Status

The age distribution of participants’ partners shows that 50% were aged 20–30 years, followed by 43.33% in the 31–40 years range. A minority (6.67%) were aged 41–50 years, with none above 50 years. The mean age of the partners was 31.21 years. Regarding education, 36.67% of the partners had completed up to 10th grade, 30% had completed intermediate education, 13.33% held a degree, and 20% were uneducated. In terms of occupation, 56.67% of the partners were employed, while 43.33% were housewives.

Table 6            Partner Details

The primary reasons for seeking consultation included being a patient attender (60.00%), marital discord (13.33%), insomnia (13.33%), sexual dysfunction (6.67%), and tobacco dependence (6.67%). These findings suggest a multifaceted range of issues prompting consultations, with marital and psychological challenges being significant contributors.

Table 7 Reason for Consultation

The coping strategies employed by participants were evaluated using the CSCL. For primary appraisal, 70% of participants perceived situations positively, while 30% found them stressful. Regarding secondary appraisal, internal coping mechanisms included strong willpower (36.67%), low confidence (30%), positivity (20%), and confidence (13.33%). External coping mechanisms involved peer support (63.33%) and seeking help (36.67%). The mean CSCL score for coping skills was 12.5, indicating varied levels of adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies among participants.

Table 8 Coping Strategies

Depression severity was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). A majority (70%) of participants scored less than 8, indicating no significant depressive symptoms. However, 30% of participants scored 8 or above, suggesting the presence of clinically significant depression requiring further evaluation or intervention.

Table 9 Hamilton Scoring for Depression

The AUDIT scores revealed that 86.67% of participants had scores between 0 and 7, indicating low-risk drinking behavior. A smaller proportion (13.33%) had scores of 8–15, reflecting hazardous drinking behavior. No participants scored above 15, indicating the absence of harmful drinking or alcohol dependence in the study population.

Table 10 AUDIT Score

Psychiatric conditions were present in 56.67% of participants, while 43.33% had no psychopathological symptoms. Negative behaviors, such as maladaptive responses to stress or conflict, were observed in 43.33% of participants, while 56.67% demonstrated no such behaviors. These findings underline the psychosocial burden and its implications for mental health in the study group.

Table 11 Psychiatric Condition

The study investigated various socio-demographic, psychological, and behavioral factors in males experiencing reverse domestic violence, providing insights into their coping strategies, psychiatric conditions, and reasons for seeking consultation. The findings are compared with similar studies in the literature to establish broader relevance and identify key differences.

In this study, the majority of participants (56.67%) were in the 31–40 years age group, with a mean age of 35.71 years. This aligns with findings by Kumar et al., who reported that most victims of domestic conflicts were aged between 30 and 40 years, reflecting the peak productive years when marital and occupational stress coalesce [11]. Similarly, a study by Sarkar et al. highlighted that middle-aged men are more likely to report domestic violence due to accumulated family responsibilities and financial stress [12].

The study found that all participants were from the upper and upper-middle socio-economic classes, with none from lower socio-economic backgrounds. These findings contrast with studies like that of Patel et al., which reported domestic violence across all socio-economic classes, though it was more commonly reported in lower socio-economic strata [13]. This discrepancy may stem from differences in study populations and the stigma associated with reporting violence in higher socio-economic groups.

The study revealed that 43.33% of participants experienced conflicts in their marriage, and 6.67% had medico-legal cases (MLCs) related to domestic violence. This is comparable to the findings of Singh et al., who observed that conflicts were prevalent in 40% of marriages with documented cases of reverse domestic violence [14]. Additionally, studies like those by Rao et al. emphasize the importance of addressing interpersonal dynamics and providing counseling to couples facing such challenges [15].

The mean age of partners in this study was 31.21 years, with a substantial proportion being employed (56.67%). These findings resonate with the study by Sharma et al., which observed a similar age distribution and employment status among partners, further emphasizing the evolving dynamics of dual-income households and associated stressors [16]. The educational profile, where 36.67% had completed only up to the 10th grade, highlights the need for awareness campaigns targeting partners to foster better communication and conflict resolution skills.

The predominant reason for consultation in this study was the participants’ role as patient attenders (60.00%), followed by marital discord (13.33%). A similar trend was observed in the study by Pandey et al., which noted that men often report psychological stress or marital issues as secondary complaints while accompanying their partners or children for consultations [17]. This underscores the need for opportunistic screening for mental health concerns in male partners.

Coping strategies were evaluated using the CSCL, revealing that 70% of participants had positive primary appraisals, while 63.33% relied on peer support for external coping. Strong willpower (36.67%) and low confidence (30%) were common internal coping mechanisms. These findings align with studies by Verma et al., which highlighted the role of peer networks and individual resilience in managing stress related to domestic violence [18]. However, the prevalence of low confidence in this study highlights a gap in psychosocial support and targeted interventions.

The study found that 30% of participants had clinically significant depression (HAM-D ≥ 8). This is consistent with research by Gupta et al., who reported a 25–35% prevalence of depressive symptoms among male victims of domestic violence [19]. The findings underscore the need for routine mental health assessments in this population, given the high psychological toll of domestic conflict.

The AUDIT scores in this study revealed low-risk alcohol use in 86.67% of participants, with 13.33% engaging in hazardous drinking. In contrast, studies like that of Thomas et al. have reported higher rates of alcohol misuse among victims of domestic violence, potentially as a coping mechanism [20]. This difference may reflect the socio-cultural context or sampling bias in the current study.

Psychiatric conditions were observed in 56.67% of participants, with 43.33% exhibiting negative behaviors. This is consistent with the findings of Bhatia et al., who reported that over 50% of male victims of domestic violence experienced anxiety, depression, or maladaptive coping behaviors [21]. These findings highlight the importance of comprehensive psychiatric evaluations and tailored interventions for this vulnerable group.

The results of this study provide valuable insights into the socio-demographic and psychological profile of males experiencing reverse domestic violence. The findings align with several previous studies while highlighting unique aspects of this population, particularly regarding coping mechanisms and mental health outcomes. Addressing the gaps in awareness and providing targeted psychosocial support can improve outcomes for this group.

The study sheds light on the socio-demographic, psychological, and behavioral aspects of males experiencing reverse domestic violence, an area that remains underexplored. The findings highlight that reverse domestic violence is not confined to specific age groups or socio-economic classes but is influenced by a combination of marital discord, psychological distress, and coping mechanisms. The significant proportion of participants reporting depression and psychiatric conditions underscores the need for greater mental health support and interventions tailored to this population.

The reliance on peer support and internal coping mechanisms, alongside the relatively low prevalence of maladaptive behaviors like hazardous alcohol use, indicates that many individuals strive to navigate these challenges constructively. However, the study also emphasizes the gaps in self-confidence and the high prevalence of negative behaviors, which call for targeted psychosocial counseling and resilience-building programs.

Future studies should focus on larger, more diverse populations to validate these findings and explore the role of systemic interventions in addressing reverse domestic violence. Collaborative efforts between policymakers, mental health professionals, and community organizations can pave the way for more effective support systems for this vulnerable group.

Ethical Clearance: Ethical Clearance Certificate was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) prior to commencement of study

Conflict of Interest: Nil - No conflict of interest

Source of Funding: Self

1. Dutton DG, White KR. Male victims of domestic violence. New Male Studies. 2013;2(1):5-17.
2. Hines DA, Douglas EM. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in men who sustain intimate partner violence: A study of help-seeking and community samples. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 2011;12(2):112-127.
3. Straus MA, Gelles RJ. Physical violence in American families. Journal of Family Issues. 1990;11(4):291-311.
4. Cook PW. Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence. Westport, CT: Praeger; 2009.
5. Machado A, Santos A, Graham-Kevan N, Matos M. Exploring help-seeking experiences of male victims of female perpetrators of IPV. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 2017;18(1):73-81.
6. Tsui V. Male victims of intimate partner abuse: Use and helpfulness of services. Social Work. 2014;59(2):121-130.
7. Kimmel MS. "Gender symmetry" in domestic violence. Violence Against Women. 2002;8(11):1332-1363.
8. Archer J. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners. Psychological Bulletin. 2000;126(5):651-680.
9. Hines DA, Malley-Morrison K. Family violence in the United States: Defining, understanding, and combating abuse. Sage Publications; 2005.
10. Migliaccio TA. Marginalizing the battered male. Journal of Men's Studies. 2002;11(1):85-103.
11. Kumar A, et al. Age-related dynamics of domestic conflicts: A study among married men. Journal of Family Studies, 2020.
12. Sarkar M, et al. Marital stress and its impact on middle-aged men: A cross-sectional study. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 2019.
13. Patel R, et al. Socio-economic variations in domestic violence reporting. Social Sciences Journal, 2021.
14. Singh S, et al. Reverse domestic violence: Prevalence and patterns among urban men. Psychological Studies, 2018.
15. Rao S, et al. Interpersonal dynamics in conflict resolution: Lessons from family counseling. International Journal of Family Studies, 2017.
16. Sharma V, et al. Employment status and its role in domestic conflicts: A study among working couples. Indian Journal of Social Psychology, 2019.
17. Pandey N, et al. Male mental health screening in family health settings: An observational study. Journal of Psychiatry and Health, 2020.
18. Verma R, et al. Coping strategies in victims of domestic abuse. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2018.
19. Gupta P, et al. Depression among male victims of domestic violence: A clinical study. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 2021.
20. Thomas L, et al. Alcohol use and domestic violence: A bi-directional association. Addiction Research, 2020.
21. Bhatia R, et al. Psychiatric comorbidities in male victims of reverse domestic violence. Journal of Mental Health, 2019.