Wife doesn't have to obey husband at home: 'No need to do household chores or care for in-laws', says Karnataka HC

A wife does not have to obey her husband's demands to perform household chores or care for his parents, the Karnataka High Court has said, stressing that marriage does not give a husband the right to control his wife's choices or freedom.

The court said household responsibilities should remain shared between men and women, while caring for parents remains the responsibility of their own son or daughter. A daughter-in-law or son-in-law may care for in-laws voluntarily, but neither can face force to do so, the court observed.

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha made the observations in an order passed on August 3 while dismissing a petition filed by a Nelamangala resident. The man had challenged a family court order from Tumakuru that directed him to pay Rs 5,000 a month to his wife and Rs 4,000 to his minor daughter as maintenance.

Husband said wife stopped doing household work

The petitioner told the high court that he worked as a coolie and could not afford the maintenance amount because he also had to care for his aged parents.

He also alleged that his wife changed her behaviour towards his parents around six months after their marriage. According to him, she stopped doing household work and stopped caring for her father and mother-in-law.

The husband further complained that his wife repeatedly went to her parents' home without taking permission from him or his parents.

The high court rejected the argument that these expectations could form the basis of his case.

The court noted that the husband's claims could make anyone with "a minimum amount of common sense" feel that he had employed his wife to perform household chores and care for his parents, TOI reported.

Court rejects idea of controlling wife

Justice Sumalatha also took issue with the husband's complaint that his wife visited her parents without his or his parents' permission.

The court said the assertion revealed the petitioner's mindset and his desire to control and dictate his wife's behaviour and choices.

The judge questioned why an Indian woman should need permission from members of her matrimonial home simply to visit her parents whenever she wishes or feels the need to do so, according to TOI.

The court also emphasised that marriage does not make one partner subordinate to the other.

"Marriage is not a licence to control, dominate or undermine the individuality, freedom and will of the other," the judge observed, as quoted by TOI.

Caring for in-laws cannot be forced

The court said household activities should receive equal participation from both men and women.

If elderly parents require care, their primary responsibility rests with their son or daughter, depending on the circumstances. The court said that responsibility does not automatically shift to a daughter-in-law or son-in-law.

Caring for in-laws can remain an act of affection or personal choice, but the court said families cannot force a son-in-law or daughter-in-law to perform it.

The judge also rejected the idea that a wife's commitment to her family should depend on obedience or submission.

"A wife's dedication to family can never be measured by obedience and submission," the court said, according to TOI.

Marriage does not take away a woman's autonomy

The court described marriage as a relationship built on love, trust, respect, mutual support and understanding rather than control.

It said women have the right to make decisions about their careers, finances and other aspects of their lives. A husband, therefore, cannot compel his wife to live according to his wishes or expectations.

The court also said marriage is not a relationship between unequals and warned that attempts to restrict a woman's liberty simply because of her gender go against equality, human dignity and social justice.

Court upholds Rs 9,000 maintenance

On the maintenance amount, the petitioner argued that the family court had awarded an excessive sum considering his income and responsibility towards his elderly parents.

The high court did not find grounds to reduce the amount.

Justice Sumalatha noted that the combined maintenance of Rs 9,000 for the wife and minor daughter worked out to around Rs 300 per day and found no reason to modify the family court's order.

The high court therefore dismissed the petition and left the maintenance order unchanged.

(With TOI inputs)