The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, presided over by Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha, has held that a husband cannot demand or command his wife to perform household chores or force her to look after his parents, affirming that marriage is not a relationship between unequals. The ruling came as the court dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor daughter under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background
The case originated from a maintenance petition filed by the wife (Respondent No. 1) and her minor daughter (Respondent No. 2) under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking Rs 30,000 per month. On November 5, 2025, the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, in Crl. Misc. No. 6/2025, partly allowed the petition and directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000 to his wife and Rs 4,000 to his minor daughter.
Aggrieved by the maintenance order, the husband filed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, contending that the total sum awarded was exorbitant and sought a modification of the order.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner-husband argued that his wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home with their minor child and that he had never neglected or refused to maintain them. He stated that he earns his livelihood through coolie work and has to support his parents, making it impossible for him to pay Rs 9,000 per month.
In his statement of objections filed before the lower court, the husband submitted that after the first six months of marriage, the wife changed her attitude toward his parents, failed to do household chores, and did not look after her parents-in-law. He further stated that she visited her parents’ home multiple times without obtaining permission from him or his parents.
On the other hand, according to the wife’s version, the couple lived happily for about two years before she was subjected to verbal abuse, physical violence, and harassment for additional money by the husband and his family. She alleged that the husband indulged in gambling and alcohol consumption, frequently assaulting her and causing injuries. She also noted that the husband had filed for divorce, though she expressed her willingness to rejoin him and perform her marital duties despite the alleged torture.
Court’s Analysis
Examining the husband’s contentions regarding the wife leaving without permission and failing to perform domestic work, the High Court observed that his statement reflected a desire to command and control his spouse. Addressing the contention regarding visits to her parental home, the court 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.”
On the obligation to undertake domestic work and care for parents-in-law, the court observed:
“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.”
The court further elaborated on the fundamental nature of marriage and individual liberty, noting:
“Marriage is not a license to control, command, dominate or conquer the individuality, freedom and will of the other party.”
“Wife’s dedication to 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 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.”
Consequently, the High Court held that the wife had sufficient cause to reside separately from the husband.
Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the court calculated that the total awarded amount of Rs 9,000 per month translates to Rs 300 per day for two individuals, or Rs 150 per person per day. The court remarked that in light of price escalation and current living costs, Rs 150 per head per day is insufficient to maintain even a basic standard of living, finding no ground to reduce the amount.
Decision
Finding that the revision petition lacked merit, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Family Court’s maintenance order.
Case No.: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 9 OF 2026 (CNR: KAHC010028852026)
