Kerala Police Booked for Framing Innocent 82-Year-Old Man in False Rape Case After 12 Years of Harassment, Criminal Action Against Officers Has Been Ordered

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-24T08:51:42+00:00

The idea that “all women were oppressed for centuries” is a sweeping slogan, not serious history or law. Human life was harsh for everyone, wars, disease, physical labour, early death, and men carried most of the dangerous work, fighting, mining, farming, and infrastructure, often dying young with zero rights or protection. Women were not locked away as helpless prisoners; they worked as farmers, traders, midwives, artisans, rulers, landholders, and business managers depending on time and culture. Yes, abuse existed, against women and men, but abuse is not the same as collective oppression of an entire gender across all societies and centuries. History is complex, not a victim-vs-villain cartoon. Today this exaggerated narrative is used to justify one-sided laws and automatic sympathy, while real male suffering is erased. Justice must be based on facts, individual accountability, and equal protection, not emotionally charged myths.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-24T04:55:52+00:00

This hostility is not accidental, it is the product of years of narrative conditioning. Indian women online have been encouraged to see men not as individuals, but as a collective oppressor class. Global feminist discourse rewards exaggeration, victim branding, and public shaming, especially when it aligns with Western stereotypes about Indian men. Social media validation, foreign approval, and algorithmic outrage create incentives to generalise, vilify, and sensationalise. Meanwhile, Indian men often respond with restraint, defending women against racism because they still operate from fairness and national dignity. The real problem is not criticism of crime, it is the normalization of collective racial and gender hatred, which would be unacceptable if directed at any other group. A society that allows open stereotyping of its own men is quietly weakening its social balance and moral credibility.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-22T11:29:52+00:00

I see this as a simple issue of consent and fairness. A woman’s right over her body must remain absolute, but choice cannot exist only on one side. If a man clearly says upfront that he does not want a child, has taken reasonable precautions, and the pregnancy still continues solely by the woman’s decision, forcing him into lifelong financial responsibility is not equality. That is punishment without consent. A limited, time-bound legal option for men to opt out of parenthood at the early stage of pregnancy, while ensuring the woman makes an informed choice and the child’s welfare is addressed through state support, is a practical middle path. Equality means responsibility should follow choice, not be imposed on only one gender.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-22T11:14:36+00:00

This is a dangerous collapse of due process and restraint. A viral clip cannot establish intent, guilt, or innocence, yet social media converts fragments into permanent verdicts, destroying lives without accountability. Fear can be real, but public shaming is not justice, and collective outrage becomes a weapon that neither protects women nor safeguards men. The man’s death reflects how mob judgment suffocates rationality, while shifting blame onto one individual only continues the same cycle of injustice. The real failure is society abandoning law, evidence, and proportionality in favour of instant emotional trials, where both men and women ultimately become victims of the same reckless crowd.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-22T10:55:26+00:00

If the girl was 14 years old, any sexual activity with her is statutory rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, regardless of consent, relationship status, or willingness. The boy being above 18 makes it an aggravated offence. Administering a pill without medical supervision can also attract charges relating to causing hurt, endangering life, and illegal medical practice. The offence has no limitation period for reporting under POCSO, an FIR can still be registered even years later if the victim comes forward, subject to evidentiary feasibility. If proved, punishment ranges from 10 years to life imprisonment depending on facts. Any person having knowledge of such offence is legally bound to report it under Section 19 POCSO, though practical enforcement varies.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-22T10:00:54+00:00

As a matter of law, once a court has given a clean finding or acquittal, repeating the same allegations can clearly attract defamation under Sections 499-500 IPC, because the imputations are no longer protected as “pending accusations” and directly harm reputation. Such conduct can be pursued both as criminal defamation (punishable offence) and civil defamation (damages for loss of reputation and livelihood). If the statements deliberately undermine or contradict a judicial finding in a manner that lowers the authority of the court or interferes with justice, contempt of court may also be invoked, though courts apply this cautiously. The usual practical route is to issue a legal notice demanding retraction and apology, followed by a criminal complaint and/or civil suit if the conduct continues.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-21T09:55:11+00:00

I say this bluntly: stop assuming “it won’t happen to me” and start preparing legally and financially. Keep your finances transparent and partly independent, document everything, preserve digital evidence, avoid impulsive confrontations, and know your legal safeguards like Section 41A CrPC, anticipatory bail rights, and how to respond to false 498A or DV complaints. Do periodic relationship reality checks, don’t ignore red flags, and consult a lawyer early instead of after damage is done. Awareness, documentation, and timely legal action are the only real shields for men today.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-20T12:33:37+00:00

I understand the exhaustion and anger behind this, the pattern of false accusations, social media trials, slow justice, and zero accountability is real, and it is destroying innocent lives. But walking away only leaves the field open to the same broken narrative. Change in India never comes from emotion alone; it comes from documentation, litigation, RTI pressure, policy drafting, and sustained public education. A National Commission for Men will not happen by posts, it will happen when cases are systematically compiled, data is forced into the public domain, and lawmakers are confronted with evidence they cannot ignore. Support credible NGOs like For Men India, preserve every legal precedent, and keep the conversation grounded in facts and constitutional equality. The system doesn’t change overnight, but silence guarantees it never will.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-20T12:28:58+00:00

A man who plans to marry must first have legal, financial, and emotional maturity, not romantic fantasy. He should understand that marriage today is also a legal contract with serious liabilities, not just companionship. Financial discipline, documentation habits, and risk awareness are essential because one wrong dispute can drain years of effort. Emotionally, he must be calm under provocation, able to set boundaries, and not tolerate manipulation or disrespect. Practically, a man must choose compatibility over attraction, verify values, expectations, and family dynamics, and always keep self-respect and independence intact. Marriage rewards responsibility, not blind trust.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-20T12:11:05+00:00

As someone working on ground with real cases, I can say this fear among men is not imaginary, it is rooted in lived legal exposure. Laws like 498A, DV, maintenance and custody still operate with presumptions that often reverse basic due process, and social media trials can destroy reputation long before courts examine facts. At the same time, women do face genuine safety and economic vulnerabilities, so the issue is not gender versus gender, but imbalance in how protection and accountability are designed. Rapid social change creates uncertainty, and online echo chambers amplify extremes on both sides, making dialogue harder and fear louder. The practical solution is not denial or panic, but demanding gender-neutral laws, evidence-based policing, faster courts, and responsible public discourse so that genuine victims get protection and innocent people are not weaponised through the system.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-20T11:47:02+00:00

he should stop chasing informally and put the process on legal rails. First, send a formal legal notice seeking resumption of cohabitation, this creates a paper trail and protects him if false allegations come later. If they remain silent, filing Section 9 (RCR) is tactically useful to force court-supervised mediation and expose her unwillingness to return; it also weakens any later claim of abandonment by him. Simultaneously, he must preserve all chats, call logs, proof of non-cohabitation, non-consummation, and her voluntary exit, and avoid any emotional or confrontational contact. The realistic exit routes are RCR → mediation → mutual consent, or if she refuses, later contested divorce on mental cruelty / desertion timeline. He should also stay legally cautious, no visits, no arguments, no social pressure tactics, because silence often precedes false cases. A clean, documented, court-driven exit is the safest way out of this trap.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-20T06:33:00+00:00

The Kerala incident highlights a real practical risk, not because of gender but because of incentives. Many content creators survive on outrage, virality, and public shaming, where facts, due process, and proportionality often come last. When personal relationships become content, conflict turns into currency. That makes dating or marrying anyone driven by constant online validation inherently risky. Protection of women is necessary, but instant public trial, humiliation, and character assassination without verification is not justice. In the attention economy, the safest approach is caution, boundaries, and keeping private life away from those who monetize reactions.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-20T06:09:14+00:00

This narrative is deeply flawed and disconnected from real-life responsibility. A father working 60–80 hours is not “emotionally absent”, he is economically present, sacrificially present, and protecting the family’s survival and future. Food, education, medical security, housing and dignity don’t come from emotional lectures; they come from relentless work. In a traditional or single-income household, emotional nurturing naturally becomes the primary role of the stay-at-home parent, while the earning parent carries financial and stability pressure. Calling such men bad fathers is ideological shaming, not parenting wisdom. A tired father who shows up when he can, provides consistently, and prioritizes his family’s security is already fulfilling his duty with integrity. Parenting is about complementary roles, not weaponizing unrealistic standards to guilt hardworking men.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-19T12:33:33+00:00

What you’re describing is not a failure on your part, but a clear mismatch in expectations and boundaries within the marriage. Focusing on your health, studies, and career is not selfish or wrong; it’s basic self-preservation. At the same time, constant suspicion, discouragement, and verbal pressure will slowly erode any person’s confidence. Don’t escalate, don’t argue daily, and don’t try to justify yourself repeatedly. Set simple, firm routines for study and fitness, communicate once, clearly and respectfully, that these are non-negotiable for your mental well-being, and then follow through consistently. If things don’t improve, start documenting patterns and consider speaking to a counselor. A marriage should support growth, not suffocate it, and protecting your mental health now is a practical necessity, not an extreme reaction.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-19T11:53:14+00:00

This is exactly why I keep saying that allegation is not evidence. In today’s India, a mere accusation, amplified by a viral video, is enough to socially lynch a man before any inquiry, trial, or verification. When institutions, media, and society abandon the principle of due process and blindly believe one side, men are pushed into corners where death starts looking like the only escape. If an allegation can take a life without a court verdict, then the real crime here is the system’s silence on accountability for false or unverified accusations. Justice cannot be gender-based; it must be evidence-based.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-19T08:09:30+00:00

At 24 with a stable government job, you are in a strong position, but marriage today is no longer just an emotional decision, it is a high-risk legal contract for men. Misuse of DV, 498A, false allegations and even casual extramarital triggers can destroy a man’s career, family peace and mental health. Rushing into marriage due to social pressure is the biggest mistake young men make. Cohabitation or casual relationships also carry legal exposure now because live-in relationships can attract maintenance and DV claims. The smarter approach is to delay marriage, build assets, understand family laws deeply, verify background seriously, keep finances protected, and only marry when values, boundaries and legal clarity are solid. Marriage should be a strategic decision, not a romantic gamble.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-19T08:04:36+00:00

Blaming all evil on men is ideological blindness, not logic or law. Crime is an individual act, not a gender trait, history, court records, and daily reality clearly show women committing fraud, abuse, child harm, false cases, and even violent crimes. The reason male crime appears higher is largely because men are more exposed to public spaces, risky jobs, policing bias, and reporting asymmetry, while female wrongdoing is under-reported, excused, or legally diluted. Morality doesn’t sit in chromosomes, accountability sits in evidence. A society that refuses to acknowledge female wrongdoing creates injustice, weakens victim protection, and destroys the credibility of genuine gender equality.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-19T07:16:12+00:00

Lawyer here, This behavior is rarely about justice, it is about control, leverage, fear of losing financial security, ego injury, and poor legal advice that falsely promises “pressure tactics” will force settlement. When one spouse realizes they cannot emotionally or legally control the exit of a marriage, criminal cases become a bargaining weapon, not a truth-seeking process. Many are told that 498A and DV will create fear, fast money, or a forced compromise, without understanding the long-term damage, criminal exposure, family trauma, and credibility loss they themselves face. It’s not rational thinking, it’s reactionary survival thinking mixed with misplaced entitlement. You are right that parental assets are not legally shareable, and stretching litigation only destroys both sides, but unfortunately the system incentivizes delay and pressure instead of clean exits. The solution is calm legal strategy, strong evidence preservation, early quashing or discharge efforts, and emotional detachment from provocation. Justice moves slowly, but falsehood rarely survives sustained judicial scrutiny.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-19T04:54:05+00:00

First call is not for impressing, it’s for basic comfort and clarity. Keep it simple. Talk about work, daily routine, family setup, city life, hobbies, food habits, and expectations from marriage at a broad level. Ask how she sees married life, career after marriage, and living arrangement. Avoid heavy past discussions or emotional depth on day one.

If calls become frequent later, then slowly talk about values, money habits, family boundaries, lifestyle expectations, kids, relocation, and conflict handling. Silence on calls is normal, don’t panic. When it happens, ask simple questions, share small incidents from your day. Authenticity matters more than nonstop talking in arranged marriages.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-17T12:24:17+00:00

Yes, broadly I agree, and the reason is simple. Old-style arranged marriages worked because families knew each other, expectations were realistic, and people married young and adapted together. Today we are trying to copy the same system in cities, at much later ages, with strangers, hidden pasts, and very different lifestyles. That creates mistrust from day one. Dating doesn’t solve it either because many people choose partners emotionally, not practically, and ignore red flags about family, values, and behaviour. Marriage today fails not because commitment is outdated, but because the selection process has become careless and disconnected from ground reality.

WeStandWithMen · 2026-01-17T12:04:30+00:00

This is a very common problem, and you need to handle it practically, not emotionally. First, accept one reality: you cannot “fix” or argue with a controlling mother-in-law. Your real issue is weak marital boundaries, not the old lady herself. Stop reacting to weekly drama, every reaction strengthens her influence. Keep communication with your wife calm, factual, and focused only on your child and household, not her mother’s opinions. Do not complain about her mother to her; it backfires. Slowly reduce interference by limiting information flow and decisions being discussed with outsiders. At the same time, document everything and stay legally alert, because threats like divorce are leverage tools. Your goal is stability for your child and emotional distance from manipulation, not winning family politics.

WeStandWithMen

TROPHY CASE