Can a husband expect his wife to seek permission before visiting her parents or insist that she take care of his parents and household? The Karnataka High Court answered these questions while refusing to reduce ₹9,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the wife and minor daughter of a man working as a coolie.

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has held that a husband cannot command his wife to perform household work, compel her to look after his parents or expect her to take permission before visiting her parental home.

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha made the observations while hearing a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay a total of ₹9,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter.

The wife had originally sought ₹30,000 per month. The Family Court, however, awarded ₹9,000 per month, comprising ₹5,000 for the wife and ₹4,000 for the minor daughter.

The husband, who was stated to be working as a coolie, approached the High Court seeking modification of the maintenance order.

During the proceedings, he submitted that his wife did not properly perform household work, did not take care of his parents and frequently went to her parents' house without taking permission from him or his family.

The High Court strongly disagreed with the idea that a married woman needs such permission or that she can be expected to shoulder responsibility for her husband's parents merely because of the marriage.

The Court observed:

"This Court does not understand why an Indian woman is required to take permission of all present at her matrimonial home to fulfil her basic desire of visiting her parents house as and when she wish and feels to go. This Court is of the view that anyone including husband cannot command and demand any female including his wife to do the household activities and to look after, his parents."

The Court further observed that the primary duty to take care of parents lies upon their own son or daughter and not automatically upon a son-in-law or daughter-in-law.

Emphasising the individual autonomy of a married woman, the Court said:

"A woman has fundamental and absolute right to make decisions concerning her career, finances, etc. Huband cannot compel wife or coerce her to live according to his wishes and expectations. Marriage is not a license to control, command, dominate or conquer the individuality, freedom, and will of the other party."

The wife, on the other hand, alleged that she had been assaulted and abused by her husband and members of his family and had suffered injuries. She also alleged that her husband was habituated to gambling and alcohol.

These were allegations made by the wife before the Court. The husband had nevertheless sought divorce, while the wife expressed willingness to return and live with him.

After considering the rival versions, the High Court found that the circumstances justified the wife's decision to leave the matrimonial home.

The Court also took exception to the husband's argument that his wife repeatedly went to her parental home without obtaining permission. According to the Court, such a submission reflected an attempt to exercise control over her conduct.

It observed:

"His version that his wife i.e., respondent No.1 herein has left the house without his permission and the permission of his parents and had gone to her parents house reveals the mindset of the petitioner and exhibits his desire to command and control the behaviour and wishes of his wife i.e., the first respondent herein."

The Court further held that a woman's dedication towards her matrimonial family cannot be tested merely on the basis of obedience or submission to the husband and his relatives.

It reiterated:

"Marriage is not a license to control, command, dominate or conquer the individuality, freedom and will of the other party,"

The Court ultimately found no sufficient reason to interfere with the Family Court's maintenance order.

Significantly, the husband had approached the High Court seeking a reduction in the amount while being described in the proceedings as a coolie. However, the Court considered the present cost of living and found no ground to further reduce the ₹9,000 monthly liability imposed for the wife and daughter.

The Karnataka High Court therefore dismissed the husband's revision petition and allowed the Family Court's maintenance order to continue.

EXPLANATORY TABLE — LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED IN THE JUDGMENT

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A wife cannot be forced to do household chores or serve her in-laws merely because she is married.
• The Court said caring for parents is primarily the duty of their own son or daughter, not automatically the daughter-in-law.
• A husband cannot demand that his wife seek permission before visiting her parental home.
• The husband, stated to be earning through coolie work, sought reduction of ₹9,000 monthly maintenance, but the High Court refused.
• Men must understand this clearly: traditional expectations, however common in families, can become legally damaging arguments when placed before a court.