Was there any indication that the Metropolitan had tried to "get her out" and that she had refused? What if the Metropolitan had attempted to intervene but she saw this as a calling to witness to her husband? Without making this a hard-and-fast, "you must react this way" type of mandate, could this have been her choice, in spite of her husband's horrific behavior? What would we make of this if it were an act done in "sovereign freedom" out of a desire to see a sin not held against her husband, out of a belief that he "knew not what he did"?
I couldn't help but think about St. Ignatius of Antioch who, even though he was forcibly brought to Rome to be thrown to the lions, spoke of his impending "doom" with nothing but excited anticipation. Is he, therefore, mentally deluded or morbid? While the deaths were, of course, motivated for different reasons, they have in common the disregard for personal safety and well-being for the sake of the salvation of another's soul. Sometimes grace is given for things like this; I wonder if those decrying her return would have told St. Ignatius to escape...or Christ to avoid Jerusalem...
Regarding the gender oppression issue...I'm not saying whether she was right or wrong to do what she did in her case--God knows--but while the husband wasn't beating her specifically for being a Christian, was he therefore beating her for being a woman? The story doesn't say that, either; it could be he was beating her up just because he could and because he felt compelled to do violence to someone and felt he could do so "safely" within a marriage. Fr. Alexander Schmemman talked about how folks today are so concerned with equality--"Why him and not me," etc--when in reality there are no rights--no one clamoring for them and such--when real love is involved.
Again, not excusing the abuse of others, and not establishing a rule of "going back to him," but...also not ruling out that there may be more to some cases than meets the eye...