Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru: No man can direct any female, including his wife, to do household chores and look after his parents, Karnataka high court said.
The petitioner had challenged the order passed by a family court in Tumakuru, directing him to pay Rs 5,000 as maintenance to his wife and another Rs 4,000 as maintenance to his minor daughter. As for the quantum of maintenance, the judge noted that it amounts to Rs 300 per day and found no grounds to modify it.
A husband cannot compel his wife to live according to his wishes or expectations. He claimed that he is a coolie and the amount awarded is exorbitant as he had to look after his aged parents. He added that after six months of marriage, his wife changed her attitude towards her father-in-law and mother-in-law and did not do her household work and did not look after them. She, without his or his parents’ permission, had gone to her parents’ house many times, he alleged. His assertion that his wife had visited her parents’ home without his permission reveals the mindset of the petitioner and underscores his desire to control and dictate his wife’s behaviour and choices. The Court observed that it failed to understand why an Indian woman should be required to seek the permission of everyone at her matrimonial home merely to fulfil her basic desire to visit her parents whenever she wishes or feels the need to do so, the judge added. Marriage is a sacred bond that brings two individuals together. it is love, trust, respect, mutual support and understanding that make them companions and partners in life While ceremonies make them husband and wife. A woman has the fundamental right to make decisions concerning her career, finances and other aspects of her life. Marriage is not a licence to control, dominate or undermine the individuality, freedom and will of the other, the judge noted. A 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 women of autonomy or to restrict their liberty merely based on gender is contrary to the principles of equality and against the constitutional spirit of human dignity and social justice, the judge added.