Mumbai: How can society protect people experiencing domestic violence without dismissing genuine complaints or assuming that every allegation is either true or false? This question took centre stage at the India Today Conclave Mumbai 2026 during a discussion on marriage, abuse, divorce and the challenges of securing justice.
The session, titled The Fatal Vow: When ‘I Do’ Turns Deadly, featured lawyer and activist Flavia Agnes, men’s-rights documentary-maker Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj, and psychiatrist, sexologist and couples’ therapist Dr Pavan Sonar. The panellists brought different perspectives to a difficult debate: the violence women experience within marriages, the challenges men say they face in matrimonial disputes, and the importance of addressing relationship problems before they escalate.
The discussion questioned the social expectation that marriages must be preserved at almost any cost. It also examined how concerns about false allegations can complicate conversations about abuse and why fair investigations are essential when someone seeks legal protection.
While Agnes highlighted the social and structural pressures that can prevent women from reporting abuse, Bhardwaj argued that men who experience cruelty or injustice in matrimonial disputes should also have their complaints taken seriously. Sonar focused on the importance of education about consent, boundaries and healthy relationships.
Together, their arguments underscored the need to recognise different experiences of abuse without turning the pursuit of justice into a competition over whose suffering matters more.
Flavia Agnes questions the language around dowry deaths
Agnes began by challenging the terminology commonly used to describe deaths associated with dowry-related violence.
Referring to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data indicating an average of 16 dowry deaths a day, she argued that the language used to describe such cases should focus on the violence involved rather than treating dowry as the direct cause of death.
“Nobody dies of dowry; they die of violence,” Agnes said.
Her argument was that physical and psychological violence within marriage must remain central to discussions about women who die by suicide or are murdered in circumstances linked to marital abuse.
Agnes also questioned the widespread narrative that women routinely misuse laws intended to protect them. She argued that many women who experience cruelty during marriage do not approach the police or file complaints while the abuse is taking place.
“There is this narrative that women are misusing the law,” she said. “But among the women who commit suicide, if you see their cases, if you read the judgments, nobody has gone to police.”
Her remarks highlighted a problem frequently raised by activists working on domestic violence: the gap between experiencing abuse and reporting it to authorities.
The absence of an earlier police complaint does not, by itself, establish that abuse did not occur. At the same time, the circumstances of individual cases must be examined carefully rather than inferred from general patterns.
Why women may remain silent about abuse
Agnes linked the under-reporting of domestic abuse to the social pressures surrounding marriage and divorce.
Although divorce has become more visible and socially accepted in many parts of India, women can still face stigma, family pressure and concerns about their financial security when considering leaving a marriage.
These pressures may discourage women from reporting abuse or seeking separation, particularly when they fear being blamed for the breakdown of the relationship.
In some cases, allegations of cruelty emerge only after a marriage has reached a crisis point or when divorce proceedings begin. Agnes argued that this should be understood in the context of the pressures that can prevent women from speaking about abuse earlier.
Her comments challenged the assumption that a complaint made during divorce proceedings is necessarily less credible because it was not filed earlier.
The broader issue, she suggested, is whether women have access to the support and social conditions needed to seek help before a situation becomes dangerous.
Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj says men must also be heard
Bhardwaj offered a different emphasis, arguing that men who experience abuse or injustice in matrimonial disputes should not have their complaints dismissed because of their gender.
“There are no comparison when we talk about human life, when somebody is wronged, it should not be looked at from the spectrum of gender,” she said.
She questioned what she sees as inconsistencies in how complaints made by men and women are treated and highlighted the difficulties men may face when attempting to have allegations of abuse acknowledged.
Bhardwaj also pointed to gaps in comprehensive data on men experiencing domestic violence. She argued that the absence of equivalent legal provisions for men makes it harder to document and address their experiences.
Her position was that a person’s experience of abuse should be considered on its merits rather than being dismissed because of assumptions about which gender is more likely to be a victim.
However, establishing the scale and nature of domestic violence requires reliable data, clear definitions and careful interpretation. Individual cases and broader population-level patterns are related but distinct questions.
The debate over false allegations and unequal treatment
The exchange between Agnes and Bhardwaj illustrated the difficulty of discussing domestic violence without reducing it to a contest between men and women.
Concerns about false allegations and unfair treatment in matrimonial disputes deserve examination. So does the evidence that social stigma, dependence and fear can prevent victims from reporting abuse.
Neither issue cancels out the other.
A complaint should not automatically be treated as proof of wrongdoing, but neither should it be dismissed simply because false allegations can occur. The appropriate response is to examine the available evidence, investigate claims fairly and ensure that people involved in a case have access to due process.
Similarly, recognising that men can experience abuse does not negate the violence and structural disadvantages that women may face within marital homes.
Agnes emphasised the context in which women experience and report violence, while Bhardwaj argued that the justice system must also make room for men who say they have been wronged.
Their differing perspectives pointed towards a shared practical challenge: ensuring that genuine complaints receive attention without prejudging the outcome.
Pavan Sonar calls for education on consent and relationships
For Sonar, the problems associated with marital conflict often begin long before a couple enters a courtroom.
He observed that couples frequently seek professional help only when their relationship has reached a “point of no return”. He attributed part of the problem to inadequate education about relationships, consent and personal boundaries.
“Now, about marriage, no one is taught,” he said.
Sonar argued that society prepares young people for formal education and employment but often provides little guidance on managing relationships, resolving disagreements or understanding the responsibilities associated with marriage.
He stressed the importance of teaching children about consent, mutual respect and boundaries.
Such education, he suggested, could help people understand that marriage does not remove an individual’s right to personal autonomy or make harmful behaviour acceptable.
It could also help challenge the expectation that women must bear the primary responsibility for preserving a marriage, while men may face their own pressures around financial provision and family responsibilities.
Changing family structures and expectations have created new challenges, Sonar noted, making it important to develop a more informed understanding of relationships.
Why saving a marriage cannot be the only goal
The discussion also questioned the assumption that preserving a marriage should always take precedence over the well-being of the people within it.
Marriage can involve emotional, financial and social commitments, and its breakdown can have significant consequences for partners and children. However, the desire to avoid divorce should not become a reason to remain silent about abuse.
Equally, a marriage ending is not, by itself, proof that either partner was abusive.
The distinction matters because relationship breakdown, allegations of cruelty and criminal wrongdoing are separate issues that require different kinds of assessment.
Support systems need to allow people to discuss relationship problems, seek professional assistance where appropriate and report abuse without fear of social condemnation.
Where allegations involve criminal conduct, fair investigation and due process remain essential. Where couples face non-abusive conflict, access to counselling and relationship support may help them address their difficulties.
The appropriate response depends on the circumstances rather than on a blanket assumption that every marriage must be saved or that every dispute reflects abuse.
Moving beyond a gender-based contest
The panellists did not resolve the wider disagreements surrounding domestic violence, false allegations or unequal treatment in matrimonial disputes. Their discussion, however, highlighted the limitations of framing these issues as a choice between believing women and believing men.
A fair approach requires attention to the circumstances of each case, reliable evidence and a recognition that abuse can affect people of different genders. It also requires an understanding of the social conditions that may prevent victims from reporting what they experience.
At the same time, broad claims about the prevalence of abuse or the misuse of laws must be assessed using sound evidence rather than assumptions or isolated examples.
Education about consent, personal boundaries and healthy relationships can form part of the response, alongside accessible support services, appropriate legal safeguards and fair investigations.
Ultimately, the question is not simply whether a marriage can be saved. It is whether people can seek help when a relationship becomes abusive without facing stigma, and whether genuine complaints can be investigated fairly without losing sight of the wider patterns of violence that affect society.