Marriage Is Not A License To Control, Command Or Dominate Wife: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband seeking reduction of maintenance awarded to his wife and minor daughter, holding that his contention that his wife had left the matrimonial home without permission reflected a mindset to command and control her behaviour, rather than any genuine grievance against her conduct.

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha was hearing a petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, challenging an order which had partly allowed a petition filed under Section 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for maintenance.

The wife and the couple's minor daughter, aged about five years, had sought a direction to the husband to pay them Rs.30,000/- towards maintenance. The Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards the wife's maintenance and Rs.4,000/- per month towards the daughter's maintenance. Contending that the amount awarded was exorbitant, the husband approached the High Court seeking modification of the order. The wife and daughter did not contest the revision petition before the High Court.

Counsel for the husband submitted that the wife had left the matrimonial home voluntarily, taking the daughter with her, and that he had never neglected or refused to maintain them. It was submitted that the husband earned his livelihood through coolie work, that he also had to maintain his parents, and that he was therefore not in a position to pay the amount directed by the Family Court.

The wife, on the other hand, contended that she and the husband had lived happily for about two years before she was abused by him and his family members and assaulted for trivial reasons. She alleged that she was tortured to bring more money from her parents, and that the husband had taken to gambling and consuming alcohol, following which he assaulted her on several occasions, causing injuries. She further stated that the husband had filed a petition seeking divorce, but that despite the torture she had faced, she remained willing to join him and perform her marital obligations.

The husband's version, as recorded in his statement of objections, was that the two had lived happily for the first six months of the marriage, after which the wife changed her attitude towards her parents-in-law, stopped doing household work, failed to look after them, and had gone to her parents' house several times without his permission or that of his parents.

The Court observed that these averments would make anyone with a minimum amount of common sense feel as though the husband, as an employer, had engaged the wife to perform household chores and look after his parents. It held that the husband's version, that the wife had left the house without his permission or that of his parents, revealed his mindset and his desire to command and control her behaviour and wishes.

Observing that it did not understand why an Indian woman should be required to take everyone's permission at her matrimonial home to visit her parents' house whenever she wished, the Court held that no one, including a husband, could command or demand that a wife perform household activities or look after his parents. Such activities, it held, have to be shared equally by men and women, and where parents are to be looked after, the primary duty rests on the son or daughter, not on the son-in-law or daughter-in-law; any assistance rendered by the latter should be voluntary and not compelled.

The Court accordingly held that the wife had sufficient cause to leave the husband's company. Making broader observations on the institution of marriage, the Court noted that while the performance of ceremonies makes two individuals merely husband and wife, it is love, trust, respect, mutual support and understanding that make them soulmates, companions and partners in the journey of life. It observed that a woman has a fundamental and absolute right to make decisions concerning her career and finances, and that a husband cannot compel or coerce her to live according to his wishes and expectations, adding that 

“Marriage is not a license to control, command, dominate or conquer” the individuality, freedom and will of the other party. The Court further held that a wife's dedication to her family can never be measured by obedience and submission, and that any attempt to restrict a woman's autonomy or liberty on the basis of gender was contrary to the principles of equality and the constitutional spirit of human dignity and social justice.

On the question of quantum, the Court noted that the total amount the husband had been directed to pay came to Rs.300/- per day for the maintenance of two persons, or Rs.150/- per head per day, and observed that this sum would not be sufficient to eke out a livelihood with even minimum standards given present-day price escalation and cost of living. However, having regard to its findings on the husband's conduct, the Court found no grounds either to set aside or modify the impugned order, and held that the revision petition lacked merit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner/Husband: Sri. Shivamurthy, Advocate for Sri. S. Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents/Wife and Minor Daughter: Unrepresented; did not contest the petition.

Case Title: Husband vs. Wife and Minor Daughter, RPFC No. 9 of 2026

[Read Order]