Karnataka HC Upholds Rs 9,000 Maintenance, Rejects Control Over Wife

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a husband's revision petition challenging a maintenance order, ruling that expecting a woman to seek permission before visiting her parents or treating her as an employee for household chores violates constitutional principles of human dignity, equality, and social justice.

Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha made the observations while rejecting the husband's plea against an order passed by the Tumakuru Family Court. The Family Court had directed the man to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 9,000 to his estranged wife and their minor daughter, comprising Rs 5,000 for the wife and Rs 4,000 for the child.

The husband had challenged the maintenance directive, alleging that his wife failed to perform domestic duties, did not care for his parents, and changed her attitude after marriage. He also raised objections to her visiting her parental home without securing prior consent from him or his parents.

Dismissing these claims, Justice Sumalatha noted that an Indian woman is under no obligation to obtain the consent of everyone in her matrimonial home simply to visit her parents whenever she desires. The bench stated that a husband cannot compel his wife to carry out domestic chores or make caring for his parents an obligation, adding that household responsibilities must be shared equally by men and women.

The court further held that if elderly parents require care, the primary responsibility rests with their own son or daughter, rather than a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. Any care provided by an in-law, the judge stressed, must remain voluntary.

Evaluating the husband's statements, the High Court observed that his submissions gave the impression that he considered his wife an employee engaged to manage household tasks and look after his parents. The court emphasized that marriage cannot be used to dominate, control, or suppress the individuality, freedom, and choices of either spouse.

The court also held that a woman's commitment to her family cannot be evaluated through obedience or submission, underscoring that marriage is not a relationship between unequals. Restricting a woman's autonomy based on gender directly contravenes equality and social justice, the bench observed.

Refusing to lower the financial support awarded by the Family Court, the High Court noted that Rs 150 per person per day would not suffice amid rising living costs and inflation, and dismissed the petition.