Abstract
Reported rates of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victimization in India range between 40% and 83% (Kumar et al., 2005; Vizcarra et al., 2004). Encompassing physical, sexual, psychological and verbal aggression in intimate relationships, IPV victimization has long term social, economic, and negative health outcome implications for Indian women (Bangdiwala et al., 2005; Chibber & Krishnan, 2011; Vizcarra et al., 2004). As a plethora of research has shown, there are a multitude of markers which can predict IPV such as The perpetrator’s exposure to violence by other family members is a risk factor (Clark et al., 2010). In addition, Dyadic data analysis has shown that social support from the spouse ameliorates trauma symptom from men who had been subjected to IPV during earlier years whilst men who experienced negative support experienced amplified trauma effects (Evans, Steel and Watkins, 2014). What’s more, supportive families resulted in less IPV interactions as well as family interference but only under certain context (Clark et al., 2010). Indubitably, the family scheme is of significance to understand Intimate partner violence, therefore I will be focusing on how family relationships influence perceptions of IPV, specifically on the man’s inequitable role as the perpetrator.