Toxic In Laws and Psychological Abuse in Marriage

Family Relationships, Marital Conflict and the Experiences of Male and Female Victims

S Willson, PhD, Independent Researcher

Abstract

Marriage often brings two families into close contact. For many couples, this creates a valuable source of support, but it can also lead to disputes over privacy, finances, parenting and personal decisions. Difficulties become more serious when relatives repeatedly interfere in the marriage, undermine one spouse or use emotional pressure to influence the couple’s choices.

This paper examines the psychological factors behind harmful in law relationships. It considers family systems theory, personal boundaries, emotional dependence, triangulation and coercive control. It also examines nine warning signs commonly associated with unhealthy family dynamics, grouping them into three broad themes: interference in personal and marital decisions, emotional manipulation, and the use of family relationships to create pressure or conflict.

Particular attention is given to male victims of domestic abuse. Men can experience psychological aggression, physical violence, financial pressure and intimidation from a spouse or the spouse’s relatives. However, acknowledging male victimisation does not require treating the experiences of men and women as identical. International evidence documents a substantial burden of physical and sexual violence against women, while research on male victims identifies barriers that can make it difficult for men to disclose abuse or seek assistance.

Evidence from India is examined in its proper context. A qualitative study in Rajasthan explored abuse by mothers in law against daughters in law, while research using India’s National Family Health Survey examined physical violence against husbands through reports provided by women. These studies offer useful but different insights and do not establish the national prevalence of every form of family abuse.

The paper argues that harmful in law relationships should be assessed through the behaviour involved, the degree of control exercised, the consequences of resistance and the effect on the person concerned. The aim is to recognise genuine abuse without labelling every family disagreement as abusive or allowing assumptions about gender to determine who deserves to be heard.

Keywords: In law relationships, psychological abuse, marital conflict, coercive control, family systems, male victims, emotional manipulation, India, mental health.

1. Introduction

Marriage is often described as a relationship between two people, but in practice it can involve a much larger family network. Parents, siblings and other relatives may influence decisions about where a couple lives, how money is managed, how children are raised and how family responsibilities are shared.

Such involvement is not necessarily a problem. In many households, extended family members provide childcare, financial assistance, emotional support and practical help. Their experience can be valuable, particularly during difficult periods.

The difficulty begins when support turns into interference. Some relatives struggle to accept that their adult children must make decisions independently. Others believe that marriage should not change their authority within the family. A spouse may also encourage this interference by sharing private disagreements with relatives or expecting their approval before making ordinary marital decisions.

Over time, what begins as a disagreement about household arrangements can develop into a persistent struggle over authority, loyalty and personal freedom.

The term toxic in laws is widely used to describe such relationships, although it is not a clinical diagnosis. It can refer to a difficult personality, a strained family relationship or a much more serious pattern of emotional abuse. The distinction matters. A relative who disagrees with a couple is not necessarily abusive, and an occasional insensitive remark does not establish a pattern of psychological harm.

The more important questions concern repetition, power and consequences. Can a person disagree without being humiliated? Can a couple make decisions without seeking permission from relatives? What happens when someone says no? Does the disagreement end with a discussion, or does it lead to threats, guilt, financial pressure or the involvement of other family members?

These questions are relevant to both men and women.

A daughter in law may face repeated criticism and pressure from her husband’s parents. A son in law may be subjected to financial demands, humiliation or attempts by his wife’s relatives to control the marriage. A husband may experience abuse from his wife and her family, just as a wife may experience abuse from her husband and his family.

The social circumstances of these experiences can differ, and the available evidence does not establish equal rates of victimisation across genders. Nevertheless, the psychological mechanisms involved are not exclusive to one gender.

Male victimisation deserves particular attention because some men find it difficult to discuss experiences that conflict with expectations of masculinity. They may believe that admitting fear, distress or abuse will cause others to question their strength or ability to manage their family. Huntley and colleagues (2019), in a systematic review of help seeking among male victims, identified several barriers associated with disclosure, confidence and the perceived suitability of support services.

This paper examines the psychological foundations of harmful in law relationships, the evidence concerning domestic abuse and mental health, and the particular questions raised by male victimisation in India.

2. Scope and Method

This paper is a narrative review of selected academic research, systematic reviews, public health publications and relevant Indian legal and social context. It is intended to bring together evidence from several fields rather than report the results of a new empirical investigation.

The sources serve different purposes. Family systems research helps explain relationships between parents and married children. Systematic reviews examine the association between coercive control and mental health. Qualitative research provides insight into the experiences of women facing abuse from mothers in law in Rajasthan. Survey based research examines physical violence against husbands in India, while research on male help seeking explores why some men find it difficult to obtain assistance.

These sources cannot all answer the same questions. Interviews can provide detailed accounts of personal experiences but cannot establish national prevalence. Survey data can reveal statistical patterns but may not capture the circumstances of every relationship. A systematic review is only as reliable as the studies it brings together.

For this reason, the paper distinguishes between research findings, psychological interpretation and hypothetical examples. It does not claim to be a systematic review, and it does not attempt to diagnose individual family members.

3. Literature Review

3.1 Understanding Harmful In Law Relationships

A harmful in law relationship can be understood as a recurring pattern of interaction that undermines an individual’s dignity, privacy, independence or ability to participate meaningfully in marital decisions.

The word toxic can be useful in ordinary conversation, but it is too broad to serve as a precise psychological classification. A person may be difficult, intrusive or insensitive without engaging in abuse. Equally, behaviour that appears minor when considered separately may become seriously harmful when repeated over months or years.

Four situations should be distinguished.

Ordinary disagreement occurs when family members have different expectations or preferences but remain capable of discussing them. The disagreement may be uncomfortable without becoming threatening.

High conflict involves repeated arguments, hostility or poor communication. Such relationships can cause considerable distress, although conflict alone does not establish coercive control.

Psychological aggression includes behaviour such as humiliation, threats, intimidation or deliberate attempts to cause emotional harm. Its significance depends on the context and the broader pattern.

Coercive abuse involves repeated conduct that restricts another person’s freedom through intimidation, monitoring, isolation, threats or control over resources and relationships.

The boundaries between these categories are not always clear. A relationship may deteriorate over time, and the same behaviour may have different implications in different circumstances.

A useful assessment therefore considers how often the behaviour occurs, whether one person has greater power, what happens when a boundary is asserted, and whether the conduct produces fear, dependence or a loss of autonomy.

This approach also prevents two common errors. It avoids describing every difficult relative as abusive, and it avoids dismissing persistent psychological harm simply because there has been no physical assault.

3.2 Family Systems, Boundaries and Marital Independence

Family systems theory provides a useful explanation for why some in law disputes become so difficult to resolve. It treats family relationships as interconnected. The behaviour of one person can affect several others, while established loyalties and emotional expectations can shape how everyone responds to a disagreement.

One important concept is differentiation of self. This refers to the ability to remain connected to one’s family while making independent decisions.

An adult may love their parents, respect their experience and remain involved in their lives without allowing them to control every aspect of the marriage. Difficulties arise when disagreement with a parent creates such intense guilt or fear of rejection that the adult cannot act independently.

For example, a husband may believe that supporting his wife during a disagreement would make him a disloyal son. A wife may fear that setting limits with her parents means abandoning her family. In either case, emotional dependence can prevent the couple from resolving the issue on their own terms.

Enmeshment describes a related problem. Family members become so involved in one another’s decisions and emotional lives that individual boundaries are difficult to maintain. A parent may expect access to private marital conversations or believe that every major decision requires parental approval.

Close family relationships are not inherently unhealthy. The concern arises when closeness becomes a demand for obedience.

Triangulation is another relevant concept. It occurs when tension between two people is managed by bringing in a third person. A husband and wife may disagree, but instead of discussing the issue directly, one seeks support from a parent who then confronts the other spouse. The original disagreement becomes a wider family conflict.

Triangulation can provide temporary reassurance to the person who recruits support, but it may leave the other spouse feeling isolated and outnumbered. Repeated alliances can make the marriage increasingly difficult to manage independently.

Seeking support is not always triangulation. A person experiencing abuse may need help from relatives, friends or professionals. The distinction depends on whether outside involvement provides legitimate support or is used to pressure, isolate or control another person.

Some adults respond to harmful family relationships by ending contact. In certain circumstances, separation is necessary for safety. In others, it may reflect an unresolved emotional conflict. Reconciliation should not be treated as compulsory when contact exposes someone to continuing abuse.

Taken together, these concepts help explain how excessive family involvement can undermine marital independence. A healthy marriage does not require abandoning one’s parents. It requires the ability to remain connected to them while allowing the couple to make its own decisions.

3.3 From Interference to Psychological Harm

The warning signs commonly associated with harmful in law relationships can be grouped into three broad patterns. These categories overlap, and not every example necessarily constitutes abuse. The concern is the repeated use of behaviour to undermine another person’s autonomy or dignity.

3.3.1 Intrusion and the Undermining of Autonomy

The first pattern involves interference in decisions that should be negotiated by the couple.

Examples include entering private spaces without permission, demanding access to financial information, overriding parenting decisions, pressuring a spouse about employment, or insisting that relatives approve major household choices.

The same problem can arise when a husband shares private marital information with his parents or when a wife expects her parents to decide how her husband should spend his income.

Financial support to parents is not inherently abusive. Nor is advice about parenting or household management. The issue is whether the people affected have a genuine choice and whether refusal leads to intimidation or punishment.

Parenting can be especially sensitive. A grandparent who repeatedly tells a child that their mother or father is incompetent may place the child in a difficult position. The child may feel pressure to choose sides or may become uncertain about which adult’s instructions to follow.

Repeated interference can gradually communicate that the couple’s decisions do not matter. The resulting frustration may be accompanied by anxiety, resentment and a sense of helplessness.

3.3.2 Criticism, Guilt and Emotional Manipulation

A second pattern involves the repeated use of criticism or emotional pressure to make someone feel inadequate or indebted.

There is a difference between telling someone that a particular decision was unwise and repeatedly describing them as worthless, weak or unsuitable for their spouse.

A daughter in law may be compared unfavourably with other women in the family. A son in law may be told that other husbands earn more, provide better gifts or show greater obedience to their wife’s parents. Men may be mocked for showing emotion or refusing unreasonable demands, while women may be criticised for failing to meet expectations about domestic work, appearance or obedience.

Guilt can become particularly powerful when family loyalty is used to force compliance.

Statements such as “After everything we have done for you” or “You have changed since marriage” may imply that a person’s independence is evidence of disloyalty. An adult may then feel compelled to choose between pleasing a parent and supporting a spouse.

Another behaviour involves avoiding accountability by presenting every criticism as an attack. A relative who has insulted someone may respond to an objection by claiming that nobody respects them. The original conduct is then left unexamined.

This should be distinguished from genuine victimisation. A person who has been harmed may understandably express distress. The concern arises when claims of victimhood repeatedly prevent any discussion of their own behaviour.

Over time, these patterns can make family relationships exhausting. The affected person may feel that acceptance depends on constant compliance and that no apology or explanation will ever be enough.

3.3.3 Family Alliances and Repeated Conflict

The third pattern involves bringing other people into disagreements in ways that intensify conflict or undermine one spouse.

A relative may repeat private conversations to other family members, present different accounts of the same event, exclude a spouse from discussions concerning them, or encourage others to confront that person.

Language can also become part of the problem if it is deliberately used to exclude or humiliate someone. Speaking another language is not itself manipulative; the relevant issue is how and why it is being used.

Some behaviour may resemble gaslighting, a term used for a pattern of manipulation that undermines a person’s confidence in their own perceptions or memories. It should not be applied to every disagreement or difference in recollection.

These patterns become more serious when relatives coordinate their behaviour to pressure a spouse or when a person faces retaliation after setting a boundary. The involvement of several relatives can leave the targeted individual feeling isolated, particularly when the spouse does not intervene.

However, family members should not automatically be treated as co perpetrators simply because they take part in a dispute. Their actions and intentions must be examined individually.

The broader pattern matters more than any single argument. Repeated intrusion, emotional manipulation and family pressure can combine to restrict a person’s independence, although this progression is not inevitable in every difficult family relationship.

3.4 Coercive Control and Psychological Intimate Partner Violence

Coercive control refers to a pattern of behaviour that restricts another person’s autonomy through intimidation, monitoring, isolation, threats or control over resources and relationships.

It differs from an isolated disagreement because the issue is not simply that one person is unhappy with the other. The concern is that one person increasingly determines what the other may do, whom they may contact, how they may spend money or whether they can make independent decisions.

Control can involve finances, employment, transport, communication, housing, access to children, personal documents or social relationships. Extended relatives may reinforce these restrictions by applying pressure, withholding support or helping to isolate a spouse. Their involvement must be established from the evidence rather than assumed because of their relationship to the couple.

Research has linked coercive control with significant mental health difficulties.

Lohmann et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review and meta analysis examining the relationship between coercive control and mental health. Their review included 68 studies, with 45 contributing data to the meta analyses.

The pooled results showed a moderate association between coercive control and post traumatic stress disorder, with a correlation of (r = .32), and depression, with a correlation of (r = .27).

These findings support the importance of taking coercive control seriously. They do not prove that coercive control alone caused the outcomes, because the underlying studies were observational. The authors also identified limitations in the available research, including the relatively small number of studies focused exclusively on men.

Reference: Lohmann et al. (2023), The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162972

Psychological intimate partner violence is also associated with adverse mental health outcomes. Claims about anxiety should be supported by research specifically examining anxiety rather than inferred solely from findings about post traumatic stress and depression.

Gaslighting may occur within a coercive relationship, but it is not synonymous with every disagreement, denial or misunderstanding. The central question is whether there is a repeated pattern of manipulation or control that undermines the person’s ability to act freely and trust their own judgment.

3.5 Gender, Victimisation and Help Seeking

A serious discussion of domestic abuse must recognize the experiences of both men and women without assuming that they experience violence at identical rates or with identical consequences.

The World Health Organization estimates that approximately one in three women globally has experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non partner sexual violence during her lifetime. This demonstrates the substantial global burden of physical and sexual violence against women. It should not be used by itself to calculate the relative prevalence or severity of violence experienced by men.

Reference: World Health Organization, Violence Against Women. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

Men can also experience intimate partner violence, including physical assault, psychological aggression, sexual violence, stalking and controlling behaviour. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognises male victimisation as a public health issue and documents such experiences among men in the United States. These findings should not be presented as global prevalence estimates.

Reference: CDC, Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Violence, and Stalking Among Men. https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/intimate-partner-violence-sexual-violence-and-stalking-among-men.html

Huntley et al. (2019) examined male victims’ experiences of seeking help through a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. The review identified barriers such as fear of disclosure, concerns about being believed, challenges to masculine identity, reduced confidence and perceptions that available services might not adequately recognise male victimisation.

These findings concern help seeking experiences. They do not establish the prevalence of abuse among men.

The implications for in law conflict are important. A man who experiences intimidation or humiliation from his wife and her relatives may remain silent because he fears ridicule or believes that seeking help will undermine his standing in the family. A woman may also remain silent because of financial dependence, threats, social stigma or concern about her children.

The circumstances differ, but neither person should be dismissed on the basis of gender. Support services should examine the behaviour and the evidence rather than assume who must be responsible.

3.6 Evidence From India

3.6.1 Abuse by Mothers in Law

Ragavan and Iyengar (2020) examined violence perpetrated by mothers in law against daughters in law in rural and urban areas of Udaipur district, Rajasthan.

The researchers conducted semistructured interviews with 44 women and 34 men. Participants discussed the perceived frequency and acceptability of mother in law abuse and the options available to women experiencing it.

The study documented accounts of physical and psychological abuse. Participants described limited options for women facing such treatment, including asking their husbands to intervene or living separately from the extended family.

The findings provide insight into how household authority, gender expectations and the husband’s response may affect a woman’s ability to address abuse.

The study was qualitative and geographically specific. It cannot establish the national prevalence of mother in law abuse or be assumed to represent every Indian family.

Reference: Ragavan, M., and Iyengar, K. (2020). Violence Perpetrated by Mothers in Law in Northern India: Perceived Frequency, Acceptability, and Options for Survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(17 to 18), 3308 to 3330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517708759

3.6.2 Physical Violence Against Husbands

Chattopadhyay et al. (2024) examined physical violence against husbands using data from India’s National Family Health Survey 4.

The study analysed reports from currently married women aged 15 to 49 concerning physical violence perpetrated against their husbands. It identified marital control, alcohol misuse and childhood exposure to parental violence among relevant correlates.

This research is important because it provides nationally based evidence that physical violence against husbands occurs in India.

Its methodology requires careful interpretation. The researchers relied on women’s reports rather than direct, nationally representative self reports from male victims. The findings therefore should not be described as if the researchers had interviewed a representative sample of Indian men about their experiences.

The reported correlates are statistical associations, not proof of causation. The study also concerns physical violence against husbands and does not establish the national prevalence of psychological abuse or violence perpetrated by in laws.

Reference: Chattopadhyay, A., Sharma, S. K., Vishwakarma, D., and Jungari, S. (2024). Prevalence and Risk Factors of Physical Violence Against Husbands: Evidence From India. Journal of Biosocial Science, 56(2), 391 to 411. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932023000196

3.6.3 The Evidence Gap Concerning Sons in Law

The two studies discussed above address different populations and forms of violence. Neither establishes how frequently men experience abuse from their wives’ relatives.

Research is needed on men’s experiences of humiliation, financial pressure, threats, interference in parenting and social isolation arising from in law relationships.

This is an evidence gap, not proof that these experiences are either widespread or rare. Direct research is needed to understand their frequency, circumstances and consequences.

Future studies should also distinguish abuse by a spouse from abuse by relatives and from situations in which relatives actively reinforce a spouse’s controlling behaviour. These are related but separate questions.

3.7 Bringing the Evidence Together

The literature suggests that in law involvement becomes more concerning when it repeatedly undermines marital autonomy, encourages alliances against one spouse, or uses humiliation, guilt, threats or financial pressure to force compliance.

Several questions help clarify the situation.

Can the couple make decisions independently? Are relatives repeatedly drawn into private disputes? What happens when someone refuses a demand? Is money, access to children or contact with family being used as leverage? Can the people involved acknowledge their own behaviour?

These questions help distinguish ordinary disagreement from more serious patterns of harm. They do not constitute a validated diagnostic test, and they cannot establish guilt automatically.

In law involvement and intimate partner abuse should also be assessed separately. A relative may be intrusive without engaging in coercive control. A spouse may be abusive without any involvement from relatives. In other situations, family members may actively reinforce a spouse’s abusive behaviour.

The evidence must establish which pattern is present rather than treating every difficult family relationship as the same problem.

4. Illustrative Family Dynamics

The following examples are hypothetical. They illustrate possible psychological mechanisms and are not empirical case studies.

A daughter in law facing repeated criticism. A woman living with her husband’s parents is criticised repeatedly for her employment and parenting. When she asks for privacy, her mother in law tells her son that his wife is disrespectful. The husband avoids intervening because he fears upsetting his mother. The situation illustrates boundary problems, triangulation and difficulty separating parental expectations from marital decisions.

A son in law facing financial pressure. A man’s wife’s parents repeatedly demand access to his financial information and expect him to provide money beyond the couple’s agreed budget. When he refuses, they accuse him of being selfish. This illustrates financial intrusion and emotional pressure. Further evidence would be needed to determine whether the behaviour amounts to coercive abuse.

A husband experiencing psychological aggression. A man is repeatedly humiliated by his wife and her relatives. They threaten to damage his reputation if he discusses the conflict outside the family. He remains silent because he fears being mocked. This illustrates how intimidation and social expectations can discourage help seeking.

A wife experiencing coercive control. A woman’s husband and his relatives monitor her movements, restrict her access to money and pressure her to remain silent about family problems. This illustrates a potentially coercive pattern involving isolation, financial restriction and intimidation.

The examples show that similar mechanisms can arise in different family arrangements. They do not establish that such experiences are equally common or that their consequences are identical.

5. Media Cases and the Limits of Individual Examples

The death of Bengaluru based technology professional Atul Subhash in December 2024 led to extensive public discussion about male distress, marital disputes and allegations involving spouses and relatives.

Subhash died by suicide and left written and recorded material alleging harassment by his estranged wife and her family. Police registered a case based on a complaint by his brother. His estranged wife also made allegations against him that were reported in the media.

The case must be discussed with care. Public allegations, police investigations and judicial findings are different things. Media reports alone cannot establish the truth of every allegation or determine legal responsibility.

The case is relevant to this paper because it drew attention to the distress that men may experience during severe marital disputes. It also illustrates why mental health support, fair investigation and appropriate responses to reported harassment are important.

It does not establish that women generally abuse men, that in laws are responsible for men’s suicides, or that one gender is more responsible for marital conflict. Individual cases cannot establish national prevalence or explain the causes of an entire social problem.

The wider lesson is that severe distress should be taken seriously, evidence should be assessed fairly, and people at risk should have access to appropriate support.

6. Implications for Assessment, Support and Intervention

The appropriate response depends on the nature of the problem.

Ordinary disagreements may be addressed through clearer communication, negotiated expectations and more explicit boundaries. Persistent high conflict may require independent counselling or changes to household arrangements.

Where intimidation, stalking, physical violence or coercive control is present, safety must take priority over attempts to restore family harmony.

Couples may benefit from agreeing on how financial contributions will be managed, how parents will be involved in parenting, what information will remain private and how disagreements with relatives will be handled.

A useful boundary might be: “I will not remain in a conversation where I am being insulted.” Another might be: “We will make this financial decision together before discussing it with our families.”

Such boundaries protect the person’s own participation in a relationship. They differ from attempts to control a spouse’s every contact or decision.

Sometimes reducing or ending contact with an abusive relative is necessary. Reconciliation should not be treated as compulsory, and victims should not be pressured to remain in unsafe situations for the sake of family reputation.

7. Clinical and Service Implications

Mental health professionals and support services should assess behaviour rather than rely on assumptions about gender.

They should establish who makes decisions, what happens when someone refuses a demand, whether either person fears the other’s reaction, and whether money, children or social relationships are being used as leverage.

They should also examine the pattern of conduct over time and determine whether there is immediate danger.

These questions are not a diagnostic checklist and cannot establish abuse automatically. Their purpose is to provide a fuller understanding of the relationship and identify appropriate support.

Male victims should have access to confidential services without being dismissed because of their gender. Women should continue to have access to effective services and protection, given the documented global burden of violence against women.

Couples counselling may be useful for ordinary conflict and some family boundary problems. Where coercive control or serious abuse is present, joint counselling may be unsafe without prior assessment. A person may be unable to speak freely in front of the abusive partner, and treating the problem as an equally shared communication failure can obscure the actual power imbalance.

8. Legal and Ethical Considerations

Psychological abuse and legal wrongdoing are related but distinct questions.

An allegation should be taken seriously, but it is not itself proof of guilt. Equally, the absence of a criminal conviction does not establish that psychological abuse never occurred.

These principles apply to both male and female complainants.

In India, legal protections differ according to the conduct alleged and the applicable legislation. Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for example, addresses cruelty by a husband or a relative of the husband toward a woman. It should not be described as a gender neutral legal remedy.

The existence of a law does not establish the truth of an individual allegation, just as public criticism of a law does not establish that a complaint is false.

A fair response must protect people experiencing genuine abuse while ensuring that allegations are examined carefully and that legal decisions are based on evidence.

9. Limitations and Future Research

This paper has several limitations.

First, it is a narrative review and does not claim exhaustive coverage of the literature.

Second, research on in law abuse has focused more heavily on daughters in law than sons in law. This limits direct comparisons between the experiences of men and women within extended families.

Third, the Indian studies discussed here examine different populations and outcomes. The Rajasthan study is qualitative and geographically specific, while the study of violence against husbands relies on women’s reports from a national survey. Neither establishes the prevalence of every form of in law related psychological abuse.

Fourth, the research on coercive control and mental health is substantially observational. Associations should not be interpreted automatically as proof of causation.

Finally, media reports about individual cases cannot establish national prevalence or determine the truth of disputed allegations.

Future research should examine men’s experiences of in law related humiliation, financial pressure, threats, parenting interference and social isolation. It should also investigate how household structure, financial dependence, cultural expectations and access to support influence the experiences of both men and women.

Studies should distinguish abuse by a spouse from abuse by relatives and from situations in which relatives reinforce a spouse’s coercive behaviour. Direct and confidential data collection from male and female participants would help address gaps in the evidence.

The absence of research should motivate further investigation, not be treated as proof that a problem is widespread or nonexistent.

10. Conclusion

Harmful in law relationships are not simply a matter of difficult personalities. In some cases, they reflect deeper problems involving boundaries, family loyalty, emotional dependence and control over marital decisions.

Repeated intrusion, humiliation, guilt, interference in parenting and the involvement of relatives in private disputes can undermine a marriage. When these behaviours are accompanied by threats, intimidation, isolation or retaliation, the situation may extend beyond ordinary conflict into psychological abuse or coercive control.

Research indicates that coercive control is associated with PTSD and depression. Evidence also shows that men experience domestic abuse and may face barriers to seeking help. In India, research has examined physical violence against husbands, while qualitative work in Rajasthan has documented experiences of abuse by mothers in law against daughters in law. These findings are important, but they do not establish that all forms of abuse occur at equal rates across genders.

Women bear a substantial documented global burden of physical and sexual violence. Recognising male victims does not diminish that reality, and recognising female victims does not justify dismissing men’s experiences.

The more useful question is not which gender is responsible for more suffering in every circumstance. It is what behaviour is occurring, who has the power to impose consequences, whether another person’s autonomy is being restricted and what evidence supports the account.

A healthy marriage allows people to remain connected to their parents without giving relatives unlimited authority over the couple. It requires respect, reasonable privacy and the ability to disagree without fear.

Men and women should be able to report abuse without ridicule or prejudice. Equally, accusations must be examined fairly rather than accepted or rejected because of the gender of the people involved.

Abuse should be assessed through behaviour, context, power and harm. Family loyalty should never require a person to surrender their dignity or safety.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Violence, and Stalking Among Men. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/intimate-partner-violence-sexual-violence-and-stalking-among-men.html

Chattopadhyay, A., Sharma, S. K., Vishwakarma, D., & Jungari, S. (2024). Prevalence and risk factors of physical violence against husbands: Evidence from India. Journal of Biosocial Science, 56(2), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932023000196

González et al. (2021). Differentiation of self: A scoping review of Bowen Family Systems Theory’s core construct. Clinical Psychology Review. Bibliographic record: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34823190/

Government of India. (2023). Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 85. India Code. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/

Huntley, A. L., Potter, L., Williamson, E., Malpass, A., Szilassy, E., & Feder, G. (2019). Help seeking by male victims of domestic violence and abuse: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Open, 9, e021960. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021960

Lohmann, S., Cowlishaw, S., Ney, L., O’Donnell, M., & Felmingham, K. (2023). The trauma and mental health impacts of coercive control: A systematic review and meta analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 630–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231162972

Ragavan, M., & Iyengar, K. (2020). Violence perpetrated by mothers in law in northern India: Perceived frequency, acceptability, and options for survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(17–18), 3308–3330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517708759

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Violence Against Women. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

Editorial note: This version uses more natural academic prose and fewer hyphenated constructions while preserving the qualifications around the evidence. Before submitting it formally, verify the full bibliographic details against the original publications and format the references according to the required style, such as APA 7.