In Bangladesh, violence against women is a daily incident, and combating it effectively seems unfeasible because of the patriarchal societal structure. The Constitution of Bangladesh upholds a co-existence of fundamental human rights, freedom, social justice and equality in the society. It glorifies the non-discrimination principle and the individual’s equality before the law. It also illustrates that women should have equal rights with men in all spheres of the State. However, over the years, the national scenario has been telling a different story.
What is Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
As per the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women 1993, ‘violence against women’ means any act of gender-based violence that results in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, which may occur in public or in private life. Violence can be classified by the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, such as intimate partner violence and non-partner violence. IPV is also a kind of domestic violence, which causes harm through physical, sexual, and psychological abuse and controlling behaviors by a current or former spouse or partner. The Violence against Women Prevalence Estimates, 2023 conducted by WHO, enunciates that one of the most common forms of violence against women globally is violence by a current or former husband or male intimate partner. The report estimated that in Bangladesh, 48.9% of married women aged between 15-49 have suffered physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence in their lifetimes, and it ranked in the twenty highest national prevalence among 168 countries.
Findings from the Violence Against Women Survey 2024
In 2024, the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) conducted a national survey in collaboration with the UNFPA, unveiling some painful truths. 46.7% of women faced physical violence and 54% of women faced physical and/or sexual violence by their husbands at some point in their marital lives. 32.7% of women suffered emotional violence, 50.1% of women suffered controlling behavior, and overall, 69.6% of women faced any form of violence. This reveals that intimate partner violence (IPV) exists broadly because the majority of women experienced at least one form of abuse including physical, sexual, emotional, economic violence or controlling behaviors at one time or another in their marital lives. Moreover, controlling behavior of the husbands is the most common form of IPV, affecting 68% of women.
The survey was based on interviews with 27,476 women aged 15 and older. And resultantly, the survey disclosed that intimate partner violence is more prevalent than non-partner violence. 76% of women in rural areas and 75.6% in urban areas endured such abuse. Since the rate is almost equal, it is a matter of concern because urban households are frequently regarded as more progressive. IPV varies across regions and socioeconomic groups, namely, Barishal and Khulna have the highest lifetime prevalence, whereas Rajshahi and Dhaka report the lowest rates.
According to the survey, intimate partner violence includes assaultive and coercive behaviors like physical attacks, sexual violence, psychological abuse and also economic coercion. In Bangladesh, the term ‘partner’ generally refers to a spouse within a marriage. In contrast, non- partner violence (NPV) means physical and sexual violence by someone other than a current or former husband.
Intimate Partner Violence and the Law
To prevent domestic violence, the legislature enacted the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act in 2010. But this Act is not certainly pertinent to the higher rate of death toll or abusive behaviors towards women we frequently find in the newspapers. The Act defines domestic violence broadly, but does not specifically mention or outline IPV. In this Act, domestic violence means physical, psychological, sexual or economic abuse against a woman or a child of a family ‘by any other person of that family’, with whom the victim is or has been in a family relationship. Whereas, IPV specifically refers to ‘violence by the husband or partner’. Family relationship in this Act outlines such relationships between two persons who are related by consanguinity or marriage, or adoption, or members of a joint family. So, we have to infer the meaning of the term IPV from these two clarifications.
The court, if the victim files an application, can award any of these five remedies: interim protection orders, protection orders, residence orders, compensation orders and custody orders. When the rate of IPV is alarming enough to consider, this legislation has declared the offence of domestic violence under this Act as bailable and compoundable. And it mentions a penalty of 6 months’ imprisonment or a 10,000 taka fine or both, simply by declaring the breach of the protection order as an offence. If the breach is further repeated, the penalty will be two years imprisonment or 1 lakh taka fine or both.
Legal Failure to Prevent Intimate Partner Violence
As the survey illustrated, IPV still persists because it has been normalized by a culture of silence and fear. Legal action against IPV remains limited, though nationally, prevention of domestic violence has always been a legal concern. It has been reported that only 7% of the survivors pursued legal action in the last 12 months of the survey. According to Ain O Salish Kendro, from January to October 2025, a total of 26 women of various ages have been tortured by their husbands, while 198 women have been murdered. While Bangladesh is a signatory state of CEDAW, levelling up to the international obligation with zero tolerance on domestic violence, especially IPV, is still invisible. Though the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2010 is an internationally obligated enactment, it just prescribes seemingly justified remedies; since it does not underscore the husband or the abuser as the perpetrator liable to the penalty of domestic violence.
So, a general question arises: is this impugned Act practically able to tackle domestic violence, especially IPV?
Since the Act aims to grant protective or compensatory measures against domestic violence, it cannot eliminate or lessen the rate of violence. In our society, where domestic violence happens as a routine incident, the Act just attempts to remedy the victim after the abuse has taken place. It is worth mentioning here that the preamble encapsulates it as a ‘preventive action’. If so, then at the time of enactment, this law was aimed at stopping the violence before it happens, rather than punishing the perpetrator or remedying the victim after the violence is done. Hence, it seems clear that since this Act does not explicitly declare domestic violence as a crime, and it does not prescribe any penalties, preventive and protective pledges cannot be established only by remedying the victim.
In the strictest sense, this Act had been enacted to eliminate discrimination but it fails to have a deterrent effect in society. Failure to have the deterrent effect reiterates the idea that discrimination and inequality always contribute to domestic violence. Typically, the victims of IPV are abused by their husbands’ controlling behavior and emotional abuse, which triggers psychological violence in relationships. Therefore, the setback is causing women to stay in constant fear of ‘danger at home’ rather than ‘stranger danger’. Moreover, emotional abuse and controlling behavior are extremely difficult to prove within the current legal system, even if reported as domestic violence.
Conclusion
Violence against women represents a severe violation of human rights. Among all kinds of violence, intimate partner violence, not being a traditional crime, often leads to violent crimes like murder or grievous hurt. Though the root causes are multifold, the dominating nature of men along with the patriarchal societal structure has a strong influence on causing IPV on a great scale every year. Besides, the said Act also highlights a disconnect between the ongoing violence issues and the legal framework. The absence of the term IPV and the provisions for awarding remedies to the victims without setting forth the penal system for the perpetrators, creates vagueness. The Act may be amended, outlining intimate partner violence separately in the definition clause, while determining to combat it with strong preventive measures.
In our society, women are frequently assaulted and even murdered by their husbands, the most trusted person in their own home. They often commit suicide because the societal structure and complex legal system force them into silence. IPV cannot be prevented until the laws are strengthened socially and judicially in the interests of women. Home should be made the safest place, not a site of homicide or suicide.
Author:
Sabrina Sadia Ria
LL.B.(Hons.) 4th Year
Department of Law, University of Dhaka.
“Opinions expressed are the writer’s own.”