An Insight into the Family Environment of Indian Women in Relation to Female Foeticide and Girl Child


  • Divya Raina Pacific University, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
  • Geeta Balodi M.K.P(P.G) College Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India


Son Preference, Girl Child, Family Environment, Female Foeticide


The present study focuses on the Family Environment (FES) of married women in relation to their status and the cause behind female foeticide, conducted in the state of Uttarakhand, India. A total of 600 married women were taken, those with two male children (2Mc), those with one male and one female child(1Fc1Mc) and those with two female children(2Fc). The sample comprised of five blocks of Uttarakhand namely Doiwala, Raipur, Sahaspur, Kalsi and Vikas Nagar. The ‘t’ test between 2Mc and 2Fc reveals the value as 7.29, between 2Fc and 1Fc1Mc as -4.86, and between 2Mc and 1Fc1Mc as 3.09, ‘F’ value shows that there exists a difference between the three groups f (2,585) = 34.37, difference between blocks is f( 4.585) = 23.11, suggesting the existing difference in the family environment of these women. Various measures need to be taken to help women gain control over their lives by coming out of orthodox restrictions imposed undesirably on them.

Author Biography

Divya Raina, Pacific University, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India

Research Scholar



Ali SM, Does son preference matter?, J Biosoc Sci.,21(4):399-408,1989.

Arnold Fred, Minja Kim Choe, and T. K. Roy,Son preference, the familybuilding process, and child mortality in India. East-West Center Working Papers, Population Series, No. 85. Honolulu: East-West Center, 1996

Basu, Alaka Malwade, Culture, the Status of Women, and Demographic Behaviour: Illustrated with the Case of India. New York: Oxford University Press.,1992

Das Gupta, M., Chung, W., and Shuzhuo, Is There an Incipient Turnaround in Asia’s ‘Missing Girls’ Phenomenon? TheWorld Bank Development Research Group, Policy Research Working Paper 4846, 2009.

Gottman, J. M.,The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,1999.

Hamby D M, Arbor Ann, Tarantola S, exploring Sensitivity Analysis Techniques for the Assessment of an Environmental Transport Model, Journal of Marriage and Family, National Council on Family Relations, Volume: 65, Issue: 4, Pages: 996-1006,2003.

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS)and O. Macro. 2000. "National

Family Health Survey (NFHS-2): India 1998-99: India." Mumbai: IIPS.

Markman, H., Stanley, S., & Blumberg, S. L., Fighting for your marriage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.,1994.

Morgan, S. P., Lye, D. N., & Condran, G. A., Sons, Daughters, and the Risk of Marital Disruption. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 110-129,1988.

Osaranen (2008) as quoted in Stemming Girls’ Chronic Poverty, by Nichola Jones, et al, Manchester, UK: Chronic Poverty Research Centre, p.6.,2010.

Jha, P., R. Kumar, P. Vasa, N. Dhingra, D. Thiruchelvam, and R. Moineddin. 2006. "Low

female-to-male sex ratio of children born in India: national survey of 1.1 million

households." Lancet 367(9506):211-218.

Jejeebhoy, Shireen J. and Zeba A. Sathar, “Women’s Autonomy in India and Pakistan: The Influence of Religion and Region.†Population and Development Review 27(4):687–712,2001.

Pande, R.P.and N.M. Astone. 2007. "Explaining son preference in rural India: the independent role of structural versus individual factors." Population Research and Policy Review 26(3).

The World Bank, Development in Practice: Improving Women’s Health in India. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.,1996.,Retrieved on 18/4/2013

Rao, Vijayendra, “The Rising Price of Husbands: A Hedonic Analysis of Dowry Increases in Rural India,†The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 101, No. 4, August, Pp: 666-677,1993.




How to Cite

Raina, D., & Balodi, G. (2013). An Insight into the Family Environment of Indian Women in Relation to Female Foeticide and Girl Child. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 1(2). Retrieved from