Breaking the Cycle: Intergenerational Transmission of Domestic Violence in India

By Akansha Rai, Delhi University South Campus

Executive Summary

Domestic violence (DV) in India is not an isolated adult experience but a family-wide trauma, with children in violent households facing long-term psychological and behavioural consequences (Felitti et al., 1998; WHO, 2010).

Extensive research demonstrates that children exposed to domestic violence are at increased risk of future victimisation or perpetration, thereby perpetuating an intergenerational cycle of violence (Widom, 1989; Jewkes et al., 2017).

Indian legal and policy frameworks, including the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), largely treat children as incidental witnesses rather than as affected persons requiring independent protection and psychosocial support (Government of India, 2005).

The absence of trauma-informed, child-centred interventions within India’s domestic violence response weakens long-term violence prevention and reinforces cyclical harm (WHO, 2010).

Recognising childhood exposure to domestic violence as a child protection and public health issue is essential for breaking cycles of abuse and reducing future societal costs (Felitti et al., 1998; Jewkes et al., 2017).

1. Background and Problem Statement

Domestic violence remains one of the most pervasive yet normalised forms of gender-based violence in India (IIPS & ICF, 2021). While legal frameworks such as the PWDVA, 2005, and criminal law provisions address abuse against women, domestic violence continues to affect entire households — particularly children who grow up witnessing violence between caregivers (WHO, 2010).

National survey data indicate that a significant proportion of women experiencing domestic violence reside with children, exposing them to repeated episodes of fear, coercion, and instability (IIPS & ICF, 2021). Despite this, children remain largely invisible in law, policy, and service delivery mechanisms. Domestic violence is primarily treated as a dispute between adult partners rather than as a sustained source of trauma within the family environment (Jewkes et al., 2017).

This approach overlooks a substantial body of evidence demonstrating that childhood exposure to domestic violence significantly increases the likelihood of future violence — either as a victim or perpetrator — across the life course (Widom, 1989; Felitti et al., 1998). By failing to address this intergenerational transmission, India’s policy response remains reactive, prioritising immediate crisis management over long-term prevention.

The central policy problem, therefore, is not merely the persistence of domestic violence but the systematic neglect of children as secondary victims despite clear evidence of long-term societal harm (WHO, 2010).

2. Understanding Intergenerational Transmission of Domestic Violence

2.1 Violence as a Learned Behaviour

Research across sociology, psychology, and public health demonstrates that violence within families is often learned through observation and repetition (Bandura, 1977; Widom, 1989). Children internalise norms, behaviours, and power dynamics demonstrated by caregivers. When violence is used to assert control or resolve conflict, it becomes legitimised as an acceptable behavioural strategy.

Empirical studies show that:

• Boys exposed to domestic violence are more likely to justify wife-beating and engage in violent behaviour in adult intimate relationships (Jewkes et al., 2017; WHO, 2010).
• Girls exposed to domestic violence are more likely to normalise abuse, tolerate violent relationships, and perceive violence as an expected component of intimacy (Widom, 1989; Felitti et al., 1998).

These patterns align with social learning theory, which posits that behaviour is learned through modelling, particularly during early developmental years (Bandura, 1977).

2.2 Trauma Pathways and Developmental Harm

Beyond behavioural imitation, exposure to domestic violence produces chronic psychological trauma with lasting developmental consequences (Felitti et al., 1998; WHO, 2010). Children living in violent households frequently experience:

• Heightened anxiety and fear
• Emotional dysregulation
• Aggression or social withdrawal
• Insecure attachment patterns
• Difficulties in forming healthy relationships in adulthood

Importantly, this trauma occurs even when violence is not directly inflicted on the child; witnessing threats, coercion, or humiliation of a caregiver is sufficient to produce long-term harm (WHO, 2010).

As a result, domestic violence functions not only as a gender justice issue but also as a major developmental risk factor with implications for mental health outcomes, educational attainment, and future relationship patterns (Felitti et al., 1998; Jewkes et al., 2017).

3. Gaps in India’s Legal and Policy Framework

Despite extensive evidence, India’s institutional response to domestic violence does not adequately account for children affected by exposure (Government of India, 2005).

3.1 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The PWDVA provides civil remedies such as protection orders, residence rights, and monetary relief to women. While courts may pass custody-related orders, children are treated as ancillary beneficiaries rather than independent rights-holders (Government of India, 2005).

Key gaps include:

• Absence of mandatory psychological assessment of children in DV-affected households
• No statutory obligation to provide trauma-informed counselling to children
• Lack of standard protocols for coordination with child protection services

The Act prioritises cessation of immediate violence but does not address its long-term developmental and psychological impacts on children.

3.2 Child Protection and Allied Policies

Other policy frameworks also fall short:

• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act focuses primarily on direct abuse or neglect, not exposure to domestic violence as a form of harm.
• Health and education systems lack standardised screening mechanisms for identifying children affected by family violence (WHO, 2010).
• Teachers and Anganwadi workers receive limited training to recognise domestic violence exposure as a contributor to behavioural or emotional difficulties (IIPS & ICF, 2021).

Consequently, children exposed to domestic violence fall into a policy blind spot — insufficiently addressed by both women’s protection laws and child welfare systems.

4. Why This Policy Gap Matters

Failure to address intergenerational transmission has serious long-term consequences:

• Domestic violence prevention remains incomplete and cyclical (Widom, 1989)
• Public resources are disproportionately spent on crisis response rather than early intervention (WHO, 2010)
• Future burdens on criminal justice, healthcare, and social welfare systems increase (Felitti et al., 1998)
• Gender inequality and harmful norms persist across generations (Jewkes et al., 2017)

Current policy thus protects today’s survivors while inadvertently enabling tomorrow’s violence.

5. Policy Options: Towards a Preventive Framework

Recognising childhood exposure to domestic violence as a form of harm enables several preventive policy pathways:

• Legal recognition of children as affected persons within domestic violence frameworks (Government of India, 2005)
• Trauma-informed service delivery integrated into existing DV response mechanisms (WHO, 2010)
• Early identification and referral through schools, Anganwadi centres, and primary healthcare systems
• Cross-sectoral coordination between women’s welfare, child protection, health, and education departments

These approaches reposition domestic violence policy from a narrow legal remedy model to a public health and prevention-oriented framework.

6. Policy Recommendations

1. Formally Recognise Children Exposed to Domestic Violence as Victims Issue rules or guidelines under the PWDVA recognising children in violent households as affected persons entitled to psychosocial support.
2. Introduce Mandatory Child Impact Assessments in DV Cases Require Protection Officers and Magistrates to document the presence of children and initiate referrals to child welfare and mental health services.
3. Integrate Trauma-Informed Care into One Stop Centres and PWDVA Implementation Train Protection Officers and counsellors in child trauma, ensuring child-friendly spaces and referral pathways.
4. Strengthen School- and Anganwadi-Based Early Intervention Equip frontline workers to identify behavioural and emotional indicators linked to domestic violence exposure.
5. Pilot Integrated Family Violence Prevention Programmes Implement state-level pilots linking women’s protection services with child mental health support, with rigorous evaluation mechanisms.

7. Conclusion: Breaking the Cycle

Domestic violence is not only a violation of women’s rights — it is a transmission mechanism for future violence. Children who grow up witnessing abuse carry its psychological and behavioural imprint into adulthood (Widom, 1989; Felitti et al., 1998). Ignoring this reality undermines the long-term effectiveness of India’s domestic violence response.

Recognising and addressing intergenerational transmission is not an unreasonable expansion of state responsibility; it is a strategic investment in prevention. Without trauma-informed, child-centred interventions, domestic violence policy will continue to address symptoms rather than causes.

Breaking the cycle requires policy to acknowledge what research has long established: children in violent households are not silent witnesses — they are hidden victims shaping India’s future.

References

1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
3. Government of India. (2005). The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. New Delhi: Ministry of Law and Justice.
4. IIPS & ICF. (2021). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2019–21: India. Mumbai: International Institute for Population Sciences.
5. Jewkes, R., Fulu, E., Naved, R. T., Chirwa, E., Dunkle, K., Haardörfer, R., & Heise, L. (2017). Women’s and men’s reports of past-year prevalence of intimate partner violence and rape and women’s risk factors for intimate partner violence: A multi-country cross-sectional study. The Lancet Global Health, 5(3), e245–e255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30001-9
6. Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2704995
7. World Health Organization. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: Taking action and generating evidence. Geneva: WHO.