See, I do agree his character seems like the old Akshara. He is in a way a people pleaser. No doubt about that. But he also argues and disagrees with Akshara when he thinks Akshara is wrong. Which is why he sold his cars and fought with her to bring Abhir to Udaipur.
Also, I don't see anything wrong with him opening up about what happened. I don't think it makes him a bad thing. Abhimanyu scolded and accused him. So what he did is standing up for himself. What is wrong in that is I don't understand. So the moment Mother Teresa accepted Nobel prize for her good deeds, she stopped being a good person or what?
Okay, this is not to you, but generally, please fo not come at me saying I compared Abhinav with Mother Teresa. That's clearly not what I did.
Ak also was stubborn about things and did fight for a lot that she wanted her way. But in this case, I really feel it's the writing that sucks. I will address two points here :
1. The AA monologues: Nav has been shown to proclaim that he is AA a lot, so much so that it is his nickname now. In your Mother Teresa example, its fine that she accepts that commendation, but it a different thing if she just goes around saying she is a good person and deserves noble for it. Thats the difference. I have no issues with other people calling Nav AA, but he himself saying that, esp as an introduction felt super weird. The first interaction with Ak, she asked him why he is helping her. He said because he is AA so he is helping, since then, for everything, he is like I am AA. In that instant, if they wanted a character with some depth, they could have had him say something like, because I know what it's like to be alone or I just want to help, or anything like that instead of saying, I am AA. Like I said, it seems a writing thing that they give him such dialogues.
2. @bold : I have no issue with Nav defending himself. But his defense was not Abhir is my son because I have raised him, his defense was more about how he is a good guy. His entire speech was about Abhi calling him not an AA. He also basically threw Ak under the bus to prove to Abhi that he was on his side all along. Why was that required? We all know, and Abhi also knows, that it was Ak's decision, but does that absolve Nav of all blame? As a husband and wife, isn't this between Nav and Ak where he convinced her and stuff? If Ak told Abhi that Nav convinced her, that is perfectly fine. But here, Nav himself is trying to prove that he is and always has been a good guy.
4