Recently there were comments made by justice B V Nagarathna of Supreme Court on fearmongering based advice given in matrimonial cases on social media. Excerpts below:

——————-
"In recent years, under the guise of disseminating legal literacy, a disheartening practice has been adopted by some lawyers on social media - to solicit clients by invoking a sense of dread, especially in matrimonial matters and marketing what is called saving tactics.."

She advised the young law graduates to balance between their duty to the client and the court. She said that young practitioners should excercise caution that their services are not used by busybodies and to further frivolous litigation.

She also frowned upon the practice of bar members boycotting their duty of representing the accused irrespective of the nature of the case.

She also added how prolonged pendency and misconduct by members of bar lowered the legacy of the profession.
——————-

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/justice-nagarathna-expresses-concerns-about-lawyers-soliciting-clients-by-spreading-fear-through-social-media-269644

What is the solution for husbands facing Legal Terrorism?

People should spend more effort in reading from authoritative sources and build own confidence.

Any random comment found online should not be taken at face value.

One should judge everything on either of empirical evidence or HC / SC judgment precedents (case law).

E.g. see how following conclusions are based upon:

1. Empirical evidence: e.g. statement "taking back LT wife doesn't work" is based on empirical evidence based on historical observations of MRAs over last 20-25 years of thousands of cases. Such conclusions are based on statistical data and this is not from any HC / SC judgment (and it will never be).
2. SC/HC judgment: Interim maintenance need not look into evidence of parties.
3. Income assets affidavit has to be filed by wife first and only then by husband. (RvN judgment). Here empirical observations seen in most courts are actually opposite of SC judgment where courts don't insist upon wife to file her affidavit first - but then that's where right knowledge will help to inform the court of correct procedure via memo, rather than jumping from one to another point of view based on what lawyer says, or random comments on internet.
4. Conviction rate in 498A is very low. Statistical evidence from NCRB data, and RTIs filed by various people in their area/ city. As an exercise, one can always file RTI in own district / city to get 498A conviction stats for that district/ city.

Avoid convenient myths, straitjacket formulas

Avoid convenient myths like the following since these are more like self-fulfilling prophecies which in fact hinder husband from fighting properly and seeking justice:

1. Wife is entitled to half of husband's property. If husband believes it then he will eventually be pressurized to give up (full, not half) property as part of divorce settlement.
2. Husband should transfer his property. I have seen cases where husband transfers property and then can't get it back! Effect of following the herd without applying mind to own situation.
3. Husband should always say he wants to take back wife! This one never gets old - and people report that this is often told by their own lawyer before they enter into mediation (add one more reason to why one should be skeptical about mediations).
4. "Law is in favour of women". This might be a refuge of weak or opportunistic people to convince other weak or ignorant people to remain weak, ignorant, and helpless, and sometimes it helps those with vested interests who want others to act and remain weak or do something which they want them to do! E.g. one's own parents might also say this if they want son to pay and get quick divorce since they want to see him remarried soon rather than fighting cases in courts. Assess the context always, not just the message.
5. Mediation will be like a panchayat. Mediation can be used to convince wife to give divorce peacefully. These are very common myths. Husbands flock to mediations - then they are disappointed that they lost more than they got during mediations, and now have to go back to court and long trial which they thought can be avoided via mediation.

Got intellectual knowledge but suffering from Stockholm syndrome and Mai-Baap mindset?

Often people are able to get some basic knowledge, e.g. many people come to know that a CrPC 41A notice / Section 35 in BNSS is required to be sent by police and they cannot arrest arbitrarily. However, not many are able to build the confidence to be able to just politely tell the police when called that they will come only after gettting the notice, and even fewer insist upon getting a simple written acknowledgment that they did arrive at PS post CrPC 41A notice and cooperated in investigation.

So basically the intellectual knowledge is not backed by confidence and action-orientation due to excessive danger perception and paranoia. This is basically due to elements of Stockholm syndrome or mai-baap mindset that one should avoid annoying the government authorities, since the corrupt and inefficient among them have power to make your life miserable.