Husband refused to pay Rs 9,000 maintenance, saying wife abandoned home and ignored parents; Karnataka HC rejects his plea for this reason

Mr Sathish from Nelamamngala, Bangalore Rural, had challenged a Rs 9,000 monthly maintenance order in high court, arguing that his wife Jyothi, had left home with their minor daughter without informing him. He also claimed that even when she lived with him, she showed no concern for his parents. The Karnataka HC dismissed these arguments, stating that a wife cannot be compelled to seek permission to visit her parents or forced to care for her in-laws, thus upholding the Rs 9,000 monthly maintenance order.

Advocate Shivamurthy, representing Sathish, said before the Karnataka High Court that Jyothi left voluntarily, taking their minor daughter with her. Shivamurthy also mentioned that Sathish had never neglected or refused to maintain her or their child but he worked as a coolie and also had the added responsibility of caring for his parents. Therefore, Shivamurthy pleaded that Sathish cannot afford to pay a huge sum of Rs 5,000 for Jyothi’s maintenance and Rs 4,000 for their minor daughter’s upkeep.

In a written statement, Sathish said that they were happily married for about 6 months, after which Jyothi’s attitude towards his parents changed, and she stopped doing household chores. He also noted that she did not take care of her in-laws and frequently visited her parents’ house.


Jyothi, on the other hand, told the Karnataka High Court that she and Sathish lived happily for about 2 years. However, she later faced abuse from him and his family members and was even assaulted over trivial matters.

Jyothi also told the court that she was tortured by him to bring more money from her family, and under the influence of alcohol, Sathish assaulted her several times, resulting in her injuries. She mentioned Sathish also had a gambling problem.

Despite all the abuse she faced, Jyothi expressed her willingness to reconcile with him and fulfill her marital obligations.

The Karnataka High Court said that the court does not understand why an Indian woman has to take permission from everyone in her matrimonial home just to visit her parents whenever she feels like it.

The Karnataka High Court said that no one, including a husband, has the right to command or demand any woman, including his wife, to handle household chores or care for his parents. Household responsibilities should be equally shared between men and women.

The Karnataka High Court said: “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 voluntary act, but not by force.”

Therefore, the Karnataka High Court concluded that Jyothi had valid reasons to separate from her husband.

However, the Karnataka High Court also observed in this same judgement that a marriage between two individuals is a sacred and beautiful bond that unites two individuals.

The high court said that by performing ceremonies, these two individuals become husband and wife, but with love, trust, respect, mutual support and understanding the feelings of the other, they become soulmates, companions, friends and partners in the journey of life.

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

Why did the husband lose the case?

Advocate Amitraj Kaushal practicing in the Supreme Court of India said to ET Wealth Online that the husband lost the case because he failed to establish any legally sustainable ground for interfering with the Family Court’s maintenance order.

According to Kaushal, his principal allegations were that the wife had left the matrimonial home without his or his parents’ permission, did not adequately perform household chores and did not take care of his parents.

The Karnataka High Court rejected this approach, observing that marriage does not give a husband or his family the authority to control a woman’s movements, choices or personal autonomy. The Court also held that a wife cannot be compelled to perform household work or to look after her in-laws as an imposed obligation, such responsibilities have to be voluntary and shared.

Kaushal says: "The Karnataka High Court further found that the wife had sufficient justification for living separately. Importantly, the husband could not demonstrate that the Family Court’s award was excessive or legally unsustainable."

Also read: Wife sought higher maintenance citing husband’s wealth; High Court rejects plea but orders Rs 46 lakh for daughters' education

Karnataka High Court order

The Karnataka High Court said that a woman has a fundamental and absolute right to make decisions concerning her career, finances, etc., Husband cannot compel wife or coerce her to live according to his wishes and expectations. Marriage is not a license to control, command, dominate or conquer the individuality, freedom and will of the other party.

A wife’s dedication to family can never be measured by obedience and submission. Marriage is not a relationship between unequals. The Karnataka High Court said: “Any attempt or venture to deprive the autonomy of a woman or to restrict her liberty merely based on gender is contrary to the principles of equality and against the constitutional spirit of human dignity and social justice.”

Karnataka High Court upheld the Rs 9,000 maintenance order

The high court observed that the family court took into considerations all of the factual aspects and the total amount that Sathish is under obligation to pay Jyothi and their daughter is Rs 9,000 per month which comes to Rs.300 per day. Thus, as per the order of the Family Court, a sum of Rs 300 per day is directed to be paid by Sathish for the maintenance of two persons i.e., Rs 150 each.

The Karnataka High Court said: “In the present day scenario, price escalation and cost of living, Rs 150 per head per day will not be sufficient for eking out livelihood at least with minimum standards.”

On this ground, the Karnataka High Court said they do not find any grounds either for setting aside or modifying the family court‘s maintenance order. So Sathish lost the case.