Husband can't dictate wife’s life choices, says Karnataka high court

The court added that any attempt to restrict a woman’s autonomy was “contrary to equality, human dignity and social justice.”

Marriage is not a licence to control, command, dominate or conquer the individuality, freedom and will of the other party, the state high court recently held, noting that a husband cannot dictate where his wife goes, how she lives or compel her to perform household chores or care for his parents.

The court noted that a husband cannot dictate where his wife goes. (Unsplash/Representational image)

The court added that any attempt to restrict a woman’s autonomy was “contrary to equality, human dignity and social justice.”

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha made the observations in an August 3 order, where she dismissed a revision petition filed by a man challenging a family court order directing him to pay ₹9,000 a month as maintenance to his wife and minor daughter.

The court took strong exception to the man’s claim that his wife had left the matrimonial home and gone to her parents’ house “without obtaining permission from him or his parents.” Justice Sumalatha questioned why a married woman should need her husband’s or in-laws’ permission to visit her parents.

“This court does not understand why an Indian woman is required to take permission of all present at her matrimonial home to fulfil her basic desire of visiting her parents house as and when she wishes and feels to go,” the judge said.

The man’s averment, the high court said, revealed his “mindset” and his desire to “command and control the behaviour and wishes” of his wife.

“Anyone including husband cannot command and demand any female including his wife to do the household activities and to look after his parents,” the court said, adding that household activities “have to be shared by men and women equally”.

If parents require care, the court said, the primary responsibility rests with their son or daughter, “but not the son-in-law or daughter-in-law”. Care provided by a daughter-in-law or son-in-law, it said, must be voluntary. “A woman had the fundamental and absolute right to make decisions concerning her career, finances and other aspects of her life,” the court said.

Justice Sumalatha also rejected the argument that a wife’s dedication to her family could be assessed by how obediently she conformed to the expectations of her husband and his family.

“A wife’s dedication to family can never be measured by obedience and submission,” the court said. “Marriage is not a relationship between unequals,” it added.

The man had claimed before the court that he earned his livelihood through physical labour and had to maintain his parents. He had sought a reduction in the ₹5,000 monthly maintenance awarded to his wife and ₹4,000 awarded for their minor daughter. The court, however, found no grounds to interfere with the Family Court’s order.

It also observed that, given present-day prices and the cost of living, even ₹150 per person per day would not be sufficient to maintain minimum standards of living.