WHO (2012) reported that about 60% of people in an intimate relationship had experienced physical violence, and about 75% experienced emotional abuse from their partners in their lifetime [ 16]. Our review shows that in India, one in three Indian women have IPV experience [ 16]. Physical violence is most common among IPV, followed by emotional or psychological violence and sexual violence, especially in women [ 16, 17]. In contrast, some other studies show that psychological violence is most common among IPV [ 18], followed by physical violence and sexual violence among women [ 19]. Usually, the perpetrator would be the woman’s husband or intimate partner (15%) or a person in a position of authority in their community (10%) [ 20]. Gundappa and Rathod (2012) argued that the deep-rooted patriarchal system, cultural acceptance of violence against women, and treating women as subordinates of men in Indian society [ 21]. These might be the reasons for IPV against women in India.

IPV is always discussed concerning women. Men are always considered the perpetrators. In a study, Deshpande (2019) stated that due to stereotyped gender roles, society hardly believes that women can inflict violence against men [ 22]. In India, the old traditional family structure was the joint family system [ 23]. It was patriarchal; the status of the women in the family was very low [ 24], members of the family had no individuality, and the eldest member, especially males, of the family made decisions for the family [ 25]. However, in current eras, societal values, culture, and norms changed greatly due to modernization and Westernization in India. Nowadays, both men and women work equally, raising and managing households. These drastic socioeconomic changes affect the family structure, and men are also being victims of IPV [ 22]. A study conducted by Malik and Nadda (2019) found that 52.4% of men in India were victimized by gender-based violence [ 10]. Among them, 51.5% of men experienced violence from their wives/intimate partners at least once in their lifetime. Similarly, Deshpande (2019) argued that men face several verbal, physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuses [ 22]. The most common spousal violence against men is emotional violence (51.6%), followed by physical violence (6%), then sexual violence (0.4%) by any female. Criticizing (85%) is the most common form of emotional violence, followed by insulting in front of others (29.7%) and then threatening or hurting (3.5%). Slapping is the most common physical violence, and beating by a weapon is the least common. Physically forcing a partner to perform any sexual act and do sexual intercourse is some sexual violence against men [ 10], which is quite limited compared to other forms of IPV. Similarly, other studies also corroborated the same results in the case of men [ 26]. In a review article, Deshpande (2019) stated that the law in Indian society mainly supports women victims [ 22]. Moreover, men are not ready to report their issues [ 27]. They are silent victims of these kinds of abuse because many men are ashamed of talking about their experiences of abuse/violence by their wives [ 28].

According to studies, the prevalence of IPV varies by region in India. In the northern region of India, husbands revealed that they perpetrated one or more episodes of physical violence (25.1%) or sexual violence (30.1%) against their partners [ 29]. Whereas in Southern India, one-third of women reported having physical violence (hitting), forced sex, or both by their partners [ 4]. This prevalence rate is similar to the results of NFHS-4 [ 9]. Furthermore, in Eastern India, the prevalence of IPV of physical violence is the least common (16%-22%), with one in two women experiencing psychological violence (52%-59%) and one in four women being victims of sexual violence (17%-25%). Any form of violence among women was 56%- 59.5% [ 19]. Studies on IPV among men are scarce. However, a study by Malik and Nadda reported that more than half of men (51.5%) in Haryana are victims of gender-based violence/domestic violence from their intimate partners [ 10].

Several studies have identified different antecedents of IPV in India. Income, education [ 10], unemployment [ 38], age at marriage, gender, caste and religion, type of marriage, and marital duration are some risk factors for IPV [ 10, 36]. Subodh et al. (2014) found that IPV was linked with the higher age of the husband, lower education or unemployment of either spouse, lower family revenue, and a nuclear family structure [ 38]. In most patriarchal societies, husbands are the sources of income. The majority of abused women relied on their husbands for financial support and other expenses [ 17]. Lack of economic resources [ 39] and dependence are linked with violence [ 2]. Similarly, it is possible to generate stress, frustration, and a sense of insufficiency for failing gender role expectations among impoverished people, which in turn creates violence among couples [ 40]. However, there are studies inconsistent with these results. Raj et al. (2018) reported that women’s earnings did not predict IPV [ 41]. Similarly, studies show that more than one-third of women in India experience physical or sexual violence sometime in their lifetime. Among them, Krishnan (2005) found that women belonging to lower castes were more likely to report violence [ 4]. One of the reasons for the vulnerability of domestic violence among lower-caste women is a more conservative gender attitude among them [ 42].

Even though the factors mentioned above act as risk factors for IPV, some other elements act as protective factors for IPV. Increasing levels of education among women are crucial to reducing IPV against women [ 43]. It acts as a protective influence by altering society’s attitudes toward the acceptability of the mistreatment of women [ 44]. Additionally, Thakur (2001) reported that education and occupation play an essential positive role in reducing gender-based violence, which suggests that women’s development, awareness about reproductive rights, and empowerment are the main key factors in reducing gender-based violence [ 45].

Nowadays, IPV is recognized as a sociocultural problem [ 32]. Cultural normalization of abuse or violence, gender role expectations, and dowry are the foremost cultural risk factors of IPV against women in India [ 8, 36, 46]. These deeply rooted patriarchal attitudes internalized in men tend to develop IPV perpetration behavior among men [ 47]. In a patriarchal society like India, a man has a right to correct and discipline women’s behavior through violence [ 35]. Mitra and Singh also found similar results, stating that, in India, a man is socially superior and has the right to assert power over women [ 48]. This perceived marital power leads to violence [ 49]. Besides, a study by Begum and Colleagues (2015) found that women who accept or justify their partner’s abuse are at twice the risk of domestic violence than women who do not justify it [ 50]. Another study by Bibi et al. (2014) found that wives being disobedient and making arguments were the most common instigating factors for violence among couples [ 51]. Furthermore, Levinson (1989) suggests that wife-beating happens more often in cultures where men have financial and decision-making power in the household, women do not have easy access to divorce, and adults use violence to resolve their conflicts [ 52]. In particular, structural inequalities between men and women, rigid gender roles, and the concept of manhood connected to dominance, male honor, and aggression contribute to increasing the risk of partner violence [ 53]. John et al. (2017) argued that gender beliefs and attitudes are developed in an individual during the early period of their life [ 54]. Gender socialization has a role in it. The process of learning and internalizing societal gender norms or rules of society, which are developed by connection with the people of a society, is called gender socialization. This gender role belief defines a woman’s status within marriage [ 54]. Due to the predetermined gender roles within marriage, women often rely on their husbands for socioeconomic survival [ 17], have a lower status in their marriages, and are more likely to experience gender-based violence [ 25, 55]. It might be why Indian women are more prone to gender-based violence. However, if husbands reported greater gender equality ideologies, wives were less likely to report IPV [ 56]. Furthermore, when a woman’s first kid is a female rather than a male, they are more likely to report psychological, physical, and sexual IPV [ 57]. The result revealed the son’s preference in Indian society. In India, masculinity ( e.g., controlling behavior and gender inequitable attitudes) strongly determine men’s preference for sons over daughters as well as their tendency for violence towards an intimate partner [ 58]. The son preference is often the result of the benefits of having male children and drawbacks of having female children in India. The one reason for such preference is dowry. It is a custom in India and is defined as any property or financial payment given to the groom by the bride’s family during the marriage. It is another cultural risk factor for violence among couples if the demands are not met [ 59]. Dowry-related violence often results if the bride’s parents have not met the dowry demands of the groom’s family, withholding of dowry, and/or dowry does not satisfy the groom/groom’s family [ 60]. Prasad et al. (1988) argued that many dowry disputes either end in the death of the bride or the suicide of the bride [ 60].

According to the social learning theory of violence, using violence to resolve conflict is often learned through observing parents or other adults during childhood. Many studies reported that experiencing or witnessing violence in childhood is associated with developing violence-perpetration behavior in an individual [ 61, 62]. Witnessing violence [ 63], Childhood abuse, alcohol [ 56], and drug use are the main individual risk factors of IPV against women in India [ 8, 36]. Personal history of violence in the family stemmed as a powerful causal factor for the perpetration of partner aggression by men. The abuse was higher among women whose husbands had either victimized violence or had witnessed their mothers being abused or harmed [ 40]. Although men who abuse their spouses often have a personal history of violence in their background, not all men who witness or suffer abuse become abusive [ 64].

Similarly, Sabri et al. (2014) found that alcohol use by husbands, jealousy, suspicion, control, and emotionally and sexually abusive behaviors were also related to an augmented probability of women experiencing severe IPV and injuries [ 63]. A higher prevalence of IPV was associated with alcohol use among couples in India [ 38]. Additionally, Subodh et al. (2014) found that the prevalence of spousal IPV was higher among alcohol-dependent and opioid-dependent men [ 38]. Furthermore, Patra et al. (2018) argued that heavy drinking could cause marital conflict and dissatisfaction among couples, and it may lead to IPV, suggesting that the use of alcohol and other drugs could increase aggressiveness and IPV in an individual [ 2]. Riggs and O’Leary (1996) developed a ‘model of courtship aggression’ to explain IPV [ 65]. According to the model, two components can stem aggression between couples: i.e., background and situational factors. These factors contribute to the development of aggression between couples. The background component comprises historical, societal, and individual characteristics. These factors might comprise a history of childhood abuse, exposure to violence in childhood, personality characteristics, a history of the use of aggression, psychopathology, social norms, and attitudes toward aggression to resolve conflicts. The situational components are the situation or setting the place for violence to happen (including expectations of the outcomes of the violence, interpersonal conflict, intimacy levels, and substance use). Interaction among these factors determines the intensity of the conflict and the chance of violence occurrence [ 62].