Marriage Not License To Control; Can’t Command Wife To Do Household Activities Or Look After In-laws: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court was considering the husband's challenge against the order of the Family Court for maintenance.
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, Karnataka High Court
While dismissing a man’s revision petition, the Karnataka High Court has held that marriage is not a license to control the other party and anyone, including a husband, cannot command his wife to do household activities and look after his parents.
The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, against an order partly allowing the petition filed under Section 144(1) of B.N.S.S. 2023 for maintenance.
The Single Bench of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha stated, “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. Household activities have to be shared by men and women equally. If the parents are required to be looked after, the primary duty vests upon the son or daughter as the case may be, but not the son-in-law or daughter-in-law. 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.”
“A woman has got fundamental and absolute right to make decisions concerning her career, finances, etc., Husband 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”, it added.
Advocate Shivamurthy represented the Petitioner.
Factual Background
A petition was filed by the wife and the minor daughter (Respondents) invoking Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay them a sum of Rs 30,000 towards maintenance. It was the petitioner’s case that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home taking the daughter with her. The petitioner claimed that he was not in a position to pay the sum towards maintenance and thus sought modification of the impugned order.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the version of the respondents that the petitioner and respondent lived happily for about 2 years, but she was abused by the petitioner and his family members and was assaulted for silly reasons. The wife claimed that the petitioner cultivated the habits of gambling and consuming alcohol, which also led to the assault of the wife several times.
The Bench noticed that the petitioner contended that the wife changed her attitude towards her father-in-law and mother-in-law. It was alleged that she failed to do household work and did not look after her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Bench thus stated, “The above averments will certainly make anyone with minimum amount of common sense feel as if the petitioner/husband as an employer employed respondent No.1 to do household chores and to look after his parents. 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 Bench held that the wife had a reasonable cause to leave the company of the petitioner/husband. “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”, it mentioned.
Thus, finding no ground either for setting aside or modifying the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the revision petition.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:40326)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Shivamurthy, S. Kumar