BENGALURU: Anyone, including a husband, cannot command and demand any female, including his wife, to do household activities and to look after his parents, observed the Karnataka High Court, dismissing a revision petition filed by a man.
The court further said household activities have to be shared by men and women equally. If the parents have 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 should be a voluntary act and not by force, it stated.
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha made the observations while passing the order dismissing the revision petition filed by the husband (36), working as a coolie in Bengaluru. He had challenged an order passed by the family court in November 2025, asking him to pay Rs 9,000 as maintenance to his wife (33), staying at a village in Tumakuru district with his minor daughter.
The husband contended that he and his wife lived happily for about six months of marriage. But after that, his wife changed her attitude towards his father and mother. He contended that she did not look after his parents and failed to do household work. Also, she went to her parents’ home without his or his parents’ permission, he alleged.
The court observed that these averments will make anyone feel as if the husband, as an employer, employed the wife to do household chores and to look after his parents. His version that his wife left to her parents’ house without his and his parents’ permission reveals the mindset of the husband and exhibits his desire to command and control the behaviour and wishes of his wife, it added.
Woman need not take consent from in-laws: HC
This court does not understand why an Indian woman is required to take permission from all present at her matrimonial home to fulfil her basic desire of visiting her parents’ house as and when she wishes and feels to go, the court said.
“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,” the court noted. It said the wife’s dedication to the family can never be measured by obedience and submission. Marriage is not a relationship between unequals. Any attempt or venture to deprive the autonomy of a woman or to restrict her liberty based on gender is contrary to the principles of equality and against the constitutional spirit of human dignity, the court added.
On maintenance
On the quantum of maintenance, the high court said the family court, taking into consideration all factual aspects, directed the husband to pay the woman Rs 5,000 per month and the minor daughter Rs 4,000. The amount the petitioner is under obligation to pay is Rs 9,000, which works out to Rs 300 per day or Rs 150 for each person. In the present-day scenario, price escalation and cost of living, Rs 150 per head per day will not be sufficient for eking out a livelihood at least with minimum standards. The court does not find any grounds either for setting aside or modifying the impugned order, the court added.