It’s one of those cases that leaves you absolutely gobsmacked. The Court actually believes that a man who set his wife on fire didn’t know that that fire would kill her, or did it with intentions other than murder. I used to think it was annoying when Courts and the Constitution would infantilise women in their phrasing and with the weird category of “women-and-children”, but this infantilisation of men is new and astounding to me. Everything about this case is infuriating from the get go: from the idea of a jealous, suspicious, insecure man who doubts his wife’s actions to the extent that his own insecurities drive him to set her on fire, to the idea that anyone, especially men in power who make influential decisions that shape legal precedent, can think that he had intentions other than murder when he did so. Hanumant Chavan is now convicted by the Bombay High Court of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.