Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Karnataka High Court: While considering a revision petition which challenged the maintenance order passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, a Single Judge Bench of Chillakur Sumalatha, J., held that a wife cannot be compelled to seek permission to visit her parents’ house or be forced to perform household activities and look after her in-laws.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order.
Background
In the present case, Respondent No.1-wife and Respondent No.2-minor daughter of the petitioner-husband filed a petition under Section 144, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking maintenance of Rs 30,000 from the husband. The Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs 4,000 per month to the minor daughter towards maintenance.
Aggrieved by the maintenance amount awarded, the husband filed the present revision petition contending that the amount was exorbitant.
Contentions
The husband contended that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home with the minor daughter and that he had never neglected or refused to maintain them. He submitted that he earned his livelihood through coolie work and was also required to maintain his parents and, therefore could not pay the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
The wife, however, contended that after living happily with the husband for about two years, she was abused and assaulted by him and his family members, tortured to bring more money, and subjected to repeated assaults due to his habits of gambling and consuming alcohol. Despite the alleged torture and the divorce petition filed by the husband, she remained ready to perform her marital obligations.
The husband further contended that the wife had changed her attitude towards his parents, failed to perform household work, and did not look after his father and mother. He also alleged that she had repeatedly gone to her parents’ house without his permission or the permission of his parents.
Analysis
Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court opined that it “will certainly make anyone with minimum amount of common sense feel as if the husband, as an employer, employed his wife to do household chores and to look after his parents.”
The Court observed that the husband’s contention that the wife had gone to her parents’ house without his or his parents’ permission reflected his desire to control her behaviour and wishes. Further, the Court stated that it could “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.”
The Court held 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 stated that household activities must be shared equally by men and women and the primary duty of looking after parents lies with their son or daughter and not with the son-in-law or daughter-in-law. The Court held that “looking after the in-laws, either by the son-in-law or by daughter-in-law, should be a voluntarily act, but not by force”.
Thus, the Court opined that the wife had sufficient cause to leave the company of the husband.
The Court stressed that “marriage is a sacred and beautiful bond that brings two individuals together. By Performing ceremonies, they become merely husband and wife. But with love, trust, respect, mutual support and understanding the feelings of the other, they become soulmates, companions, friends and partners in the journey of life.”
The Court highlighted that a woman has fundamental and absolute right to make decisions concerning her career, finances, etc. and a “husband cannot compel wife or coerce herto live according to his wishes and expectations”. Further, the Court stated that marriage is not a license to control, command, dominate or conquer the individuality, freedom, and will of the other party.
The Court stated that “wife’s dedication to family can never be measured by obedience and submission” as marriage is not a relationship between unequals. The Court held that “any attempt or venture to deprive the autonomy of woman or to restrict her liberty merely basing on gender is contrary to the principles of equality and against the constitutional spirit of human dignity and social justice”.
Decision
The Court directed the husband to pay Rs 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs 4,000 per month to the minor daughter. Thus, the total amount which petitioner would be under obligation to pay to the respondents would be Rs 9,000 per month, which would come to Rs 300 per day, that is, Rs 150 per person per day.
Accordingly, the Court found no ground to set aside or modify the impugned order and held that the revision petition lacked merit.
[Sathish v. Jyothi G. R., 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 11710, decided on 3-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Shivamurthy and S. Kumar, Advocates
The judiciary should not try and interpret social relations.
It’s business is just to interpret the laws as existing and NOT give its opinion on all other social matters.
With respects for judiciary from a family full of lawyers!