Economic Abuse and Women’s Financial Autonomy in India

Draft · sources not independently verified

Draft. Sources not independently verified. Prepared by the Digital Catalyzt team; check every statistic, law, quotation and contact detail against the original source before relying on it. Not legal, medical or peer-reviewed advice. In an emergency call 112.

CASE STUDY 56

Financial control, barriers to help-seeking and safer digital referrals

Prepared by Digital Catalyzt | Research and product-design draft | 30 October 2026

1. Abstract / Executive Summary

Examines economic abuse as a dimension of domestic violence and financial control, using India’s Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and UN Women resources. It focuses on design implications without presenting a new prevalence estimate.

2. Keywords

economic abuse; financial autonomy; domestic violence; financial control; India

3. Introduction and Research Question

How can support systems recognise economic abuse and reduce the risk that a digital intervention increases a survivor’s exposure?

4. Methods and Evidence Selection

Secondary legal and policy review of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and UN Women resources. No legal opinion, survivor interviews or prevalence analysis was conducted.

5. Case / Research Context

Economic abuse may involve restricting money, employment, property or household resources. Financial control can make it harder to obtain transport, housing and support. Shared devices and accounts can add monitoring risks.

6. Findings and Evidence

India’s Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 includes economic abuse within its statutory framework.
Financial control can affect practical access to housing, transport, communication and support.
A shared phone, email account, banking device or cloud backup can expose searches for help to a controlling person.
The sources reviewed do not establish a single national prevalence figure for economic abuse; legal definitions and prevalence measures are distinct.

7. Discussion and Interpretation

Safety planning should be individualised. Advising someone to open a new account, delete records or leave immediately can create risk if a controlling person monitors activity. Digital tools should offer choices rather than assume the user’s circumstances.

8. Legal / Policy Context

Service providers should recognise financial control, provide accessible legal and social-support information, and avoid requiring proof of financial independence before help is offered. Confirm legal entitlements with qualified local services.

9. Implications for VETRIPEN

Design hypotheses: discreet information access; low-data mode; no automatic financial-data collection; verified legal-aid links; and warnings that browser history, notifications and shared accounts may be visible. Never request bank credentials.

10. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics

Evaluate safe access to support information, comprehension of privacy warnings and referral accuracy. Do not collect financial histories by default.

11. Limitations

This is a legal and policy synthesis, not an empirical study. Statutory text establishes a framework but does not quantify prevalence or show implementation consistency. Not legal advice.

Implementation safeguards: informed consent; minimum necessary data; clear sharing status; accessible flows; no unapproved emergency-service integration; secure handling of sensitive information; and documented review of failures.

12. Conclusion

The evidence supports a cautious, user-centred approach: preserve user choice, make support pathways understandable, and evaluate outcomes rather than assuming that technology or a service framework guarantees safety.

13. References and Source Notes

These source records were consulted for this secondary synthesis. A link does not imply independent verification of every underlying statistic or full-text detail.

14. Declarations

Research status: secondary-source synthesis; not a new field study. No external research funding or formal peer review is represented. VETRIPEN recommendations are product-design hypotheses, not validated outcomes.

15. Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER — INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DOCUMENT. Prepared privately by Digital Catalyzt as part of an independent research and product-design programme related to women’s safety and the proposed VETRIPEN service. For research, education, discussion and preliminary product planning only. Unless expressly stated and documented, this document has not undergone independent peer review and is not a journal publication, government statement, legal opinion, medical or psychological assessment, or formal investigation. Claims are limited to the sources and scope stated; sources may contain limitations, errors, incomplete data or later revisions. Hypothetical examples must not be represented as real events or interviews. Legal and policy discussion is general information, not legal advice. Proposed VETRIPEN features are design hypotheses unless independently evaluated. This document does not guarantee prevention of harm, emergency response, message delivery, confidentiality in every circumstance or any particular outcome. Readers should assess cited evidence, limitations and local context independently.

← Back to all research