For many women trapped in abusive marriages, speaking out about dowry-related abuse is already one of the hardest decisions they will ever make. It means defying family pressure, risking social stigma and often confronting the fear of retaliation from those closest to them. Now, under Bangladesh’s latest legal reform, some women may face another hurdle before seeking justice: sitting across the table from the very people they accuse and attempting mediation.
The government says the new measure is designed to encourage settlement, reduce conflict and ease pressure on the country’s overburdened courts. But lawyers, women’s rights advocates and survivors are asking a different question: can mediation ever be truly voluntary when one party is already living under fear?
Under the Legal Aid Services (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, published in the Bangladesh Gazette on July 1, 2025, mandatory pre-case mediation was introduced for certain dowry-related matters. Before legal proceedings can begin in those cases, complainants and accused people must first participate in mediation through legal aid services.
Supporters say the measure could reduce unnecessary litigation and resolve disputes more quickly. Critics, however, warn that it risks placing survivors under pressure to negotiate with the very people they accuse of abuse.
The debate comes as Bangladesh continues to grapple with widespread violence against women. According to a 2024 survey by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and UNFPA, 76 per cent of women have experienced intimate partner violence at some point in their lives, while nearly half reported experiencing violence within the previous year.
Dowry-related abuse remains a persistent problem despite decades of legal prohibition. Demands for cash, property or expensive gifts continue across both rural and urban communities. What often begins as financial pressure can escalate into emotional abuse, economic control, physical violence and, in some cases, death.
Against this backdrop, legal experts argue that dowry complaints cannot be treated as ordinary family disputes.
“Dowry-related complaints are not merely family disputes,” said Advocate Mithila Maliha of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. “In many cases, they involve domestic violence, intimidation, mental cruelty, economic coercion and physical abuse.”
Maliha believes compulsory mediation could delay access to urgently needed legal protection.
“One of the basic principles of justice is that a victim should have the freedom to choose the legal remedy she believes necessary for her protection,” she said. “If a survivor wants immediate criminal action, forcing her into mediation first may interfere with the path of justice she intended to pursue.”
At the centre of the debate is the question of power. Mediation assumes that both parties can negotiate voluntarily and on relatively equal terms. Critics argue that this assumption often breaks down in cases involving domestic abuse and dowry-related violence.
“Fair mediation requires both parties to negotiate voluntarily and equally,” Maliha said. “However, in many dowry-related cases in Bangladesh, the survivor and the accused are not in equal positions.”
Economic dependence, social stigma and fear of retaliation can heavily influence a survivor’s choices. In many cases, the accused or their family may hold greater financial, social or familial power, creating a risk that mediation may favour the stronger party rather than protect the weaker one.
Critics also warn that mandatory mediation could delay investigations, hinder evidence collection and create opportunities for intimidation or coercion.
“Compulsory mediation may retraumatise victims by forcing them to confront the alleged abuser directly,” Maliha said. “It may delay criminal proceedings and create opportunities for intimidation, evidence tampering or coercion.”
Perhaps most troubling is the possibility that some women may choose not to report abuse at all.
“Some women may stop reporting abuse altogether if they know they must first participate in compulsory mediation with the accused,” Maliha said. “That would reduce access to justice and weaken protection for survivors.”
The debate is not about whether mediation has value. Alternative dispute resolution is widely used to settle civil disputes and reduce court backlogs. The real question is whether mediation should be mandatory in cases involving violence, coercion and unequal power. For many survivors, justice is not simply about winning a case. It is about having the freedom to seek protection without first being asked to compromise with an alleged abuser.
