From Shraddha Walkar to Saurabh Rajput: Why Indian couples are killing each other

Time of India

22-04-2025

Imagine returning home after a long day - expecting peace, only to be met by horror. In a Delhi flat, police uncovered the dismembered, remains of
Shraddha Walkar
, stuffed into a fridge by her live-in partner. In Meerut,
Saurabh Rajput
's body was exhumed from a cement-filled drum - another grotesque betrayal within four walls once called 'home.' These are not fictional crime thrillers, but terrifying truths - mirroring a dark pattern: Indian homes becoming crime scenes, and intimate partners turning executioners.
Recent months have seen both husbands and wives become perpetrators and victims in a string of brutal killings from a YouTube influencer's wife and her accomplice murdering her spouse in Haryana to a live-in partner's deadly rage in Delhi's
Munirka
. Experts trace this rise to a volatile mix of financial and dowry disputes, infidelity, substance-fuelled aggression and untreated mental-health issues. Yet for many trapped in violent or untenable marriages, the promise of legal relief, mandatory cooling-off periods, burdensome proof in contested divorces and years-long court backlogs only adds fresh torment.
Behind closed doors: What drives partners to kill?
Psychologists reveal a toxic mix of emotional detachment and untreated mental-health issues can conspire to transform everyday conflicts into fatal violence.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now
Tips and Tricks
Undo
Dipali Batra, a senior consultant clinical psychologist at Max Superspeciality hospital notes that the hallmark of a premeditated killing such as Aaftab Poonawalla's week-long planning of Shraddha Walkar's murder is often rooted in antisocial personality traits. 'Individuals with this disorder lack empathy, guilt and any regard for moral values,' she explains. Their inner dialogue becomes a rigid justification: 'I am doing this because this person did this to me,' they tell themselves. Detached emotionally from their victim, they rationalise violence as a deserved punishment, believing that societal norms simply do not apply to them.
This extreme detachment and dissociation allow perpetrators to dehumanise their partners, viewing them as objects rather than fellow human beings. Batra says that such violence is rarely the product of a single factor; rather, it emerges at the nexus of biological predispositions, unresolved childhood trauma and poor emotion-regulation skills. 'When pent-up aggression and past resentments remain unaddressed,' she says, 'individuals can suppress any spark of compassion, making it frighteningly easy to plan and carry out an act of homicide.'
By contrast, homicides born of a 'heat-of-the-moment' conflict typically involve no planning, but instead reflect an inability to control intense emotions. In both profiles, however, warning signs of frequent conflicts, manipulative behaviour, emotional suppression and a rigid, entitled mindset can often be detected beforehand. Batra warns that once a perpetrator convinces themselves that 'my needs and grievances are more important than anyone else's,' moral boundaries collapse entirely, and violence becomes the logical, if tragic, solution to imagined wrongs.
Monika Sharma, a senior psychologist, says that patriarchy is often at the root of this violence : 'Patriarchal systems cast women as men's property. When educated, independent women assert their rights, some men feel their authority threatened. Domestic violence becomes a tool to reassert control, and in rare but horrific cases, that control turns to homicide.'
Batra traces these tendencies back to childhood modelling: 'Sons who witness unchallenged aggression learn it is a legitimate means of asserting power.' Financial dependence deepens the power imbalance. She recalls an NRI client who could not spend even ten rupees without her husband's permission, fuelling daily resentments. Dowry demands only add to the tinder: 'When demands go unmet, ridicule and abuse follow sometimes culminating in lethal violence.'
Dr Nisha Khanna, who has been working as a psychologist for over 22 years, casts this dynamic in terms of a 'power-control wheel'. 'Any assertion of female autonomy can provoke explosive rage, especially in those with narcissistic or antisocial traits. Violence becomes the only way to punish perceived insubordination and reclaim ego.'
Infidelity is another potent spark. 'Betrayal shatters trust and dignity,' Sharma warns. 'Without counselling or open communication, suppressed grief and humiliation can build until they erupt into violence.' Batra adds: 'Social stigma prevents victims from speaking out or seeking help, so resentments accumulate unchecked.'
Substance abuse fuels volatility. 'Alcohol and drugs impair judgment and magnify impulsivity,' says Batra. 'A minor disagreement can become a fatal confrontation under intoxication.' Studies have long linked psychoactive substances to spikes in domestic violence and homicide.
Untreated mental-health issues compound the risk. 'Many perpetrators exhibit borderline personality traits, emotional instability, fear of abandonment and impulsivity or antisocial traits, characterised by lack of empathy and remorse,' Batra notes. 'Stigma and cost deter them from therapy, so unhealthy coping mechanisms fester.'
Justice feels distant in family courts
While laws around divorce and domestic violence are designed to offer protection and resolution, they often end up entangling individuals in slow, emotionally draining processes. From mandatory waiting periods to the burden of proof in contested divorces or criminal cases, the system can feel less like a path to justice and more like another layer of struggle.
'Mutual-consent divorce can feel like a cruel irony,' Aditi Mahoni observes. Mahoni, a Mumbai-based lawyer who has been handling divorce cases since 2012, points out that even couples seeking an amicable, mutual-consent divorce can feel trapped by the very laws meant to guide them. Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, spouses must be married for at least one year and live separately for another year before filing, then endure a further six-month 'cooling-off' period.
This framework was built on the belief that marriage is sacrosanct offering a final chance to reconcile rather than rush into irreversible decisions. Yet, for many, these mandatory waits become an ordeal: by the time their petitions succeed, they have already moved on emotionally and materially. The Supreme Court's Amardeep Singh ruling has recognised these hardships, allowing courts to waive the cooling-off period when separation is complete, reconciliation efforts have failed, all disputes are settled and prolonged pendency threatens the parties' mental health. In practice, however, few couples meet all four criteria or can persuade busy judges to grant the exception, leaving them bound to laws that feel more punitive than protective.
She contrasts this with contested divorce, which can drag on for four years or more. 'Grounds such as cruelty or adultery require burdensome proof hotel bills, medical reports or witness testimony. Meanwhile, interim maintenance applications for homemakers may take two years, leaving them financially stranded.'
Turning to spousal violence, Mahoni highlights evidentiary hurdles. 'When you file under Section 306 (abetment to suicide) or 498A, you must back your allegations with FIRs, medical records and witness statements. These offences occur behind closed doors, so many cases falter for lack of proof.' Prolonged investigations and court backlogs over 51 million cases pending nationwide compound victims' trauma. 'By Year 3, many just want to move on and withdraw charges,' she says.
Advocate Riddhi Thakkar broadens the focus: 'Spousal homicide disproportionately affects women in a patriarchal society where dowry deaths remain endemic. Yet recent years have seen a disturbing rise in male victims driven by infidelity, fraudulent marriages and misuse of laws to extort husbands and their families.'
Thakkar who has over 14 years of experience in dealing with divorce cases at the Mumbai Family court, Bombay high court laments the crushing judicial backlog that leaves both men and women waiting decades for resolution. She proposes appointing court commissioners for fast-track trials, strengthening investigative protocols and launching awareness campaigns so victims recognise their rights and seek help promptly. Most crucially, she calls for gender-neutral legislation in dowry and domestic-violence matters, ensuring men and women enjoy equal access to protection orders.
What now?
From the Delhi fridge murder to the Meerut drum killing and the Mathura field burial, intimate-partner homicides in India expose a lethal intersection of entrenched patriarchy, economic stress, betrayal, substance-fuelled impulsivity and untreated mental-health issues, all magnified by legal and institutional shortcomings. Therapists urge cultural transformation, accessible counselling and early-warning education; advocates demand expeditious, gender-neutral legal protections and judicial reform.
The silent epidemic of domestic homicides won't be solved in courtrooms alone. India needs urgent systemic change, faster legal recourse, gender-neutral laws, robust counseling access, and cultural transformation that breaks the cycle of learned aggression. The first step? Stop treating violence behind closed doors as 'private matters.' These are public emergencies. And silence is no longer an option.