The Karnataka Excessive Courtroom has lately dismissed a husband’s revision petition in opposition to a upkeep order, whereas observing that treating a spouse as an ‘worker’ employed to do family chores and insisting upon looking for prior permission to go to her dad and mom is opposite to the ‘constitutional spirit of human dignity and social justice’.
“…This Courtroom doesn’t perceive why an Indian girl is required to take permission of all current at her matrimonial dwelling to fulfil her fundamental want of visiting her dad and mom home as and when she want and feels to go. This Courtroom is of the view that anybody together with husband can’t command and demand any feminine together with his spouse to do the family actions and to take care of, his dad and mom. Family actions should be shared by women and men equally…”, the courtroom noticed.
The only decide bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha made the remarks whereas dismissing a revision petition filed by the husband, who challenged the Household Courtroom’s order directing him to pay Rs. 9,000 per 30 days in upkeep to his estranged spouse and minor daughter.
The husband claimed that she did not do family work and didn’t take care of her father-in-law and mother-in-law.
“…If the dad and mom are required to be taken care of, the first responsibility vests upon the son or daughter because the case could also be, however not the son-in-law or daughter-in-law. Taking care of the in-laws, both by the son-in-law or by daughter-in-law, ought to be a voluntarily act…”, the courtroom mentioned.
The Courtroom additionally disapproved the husband’s assertion in his objections, the place he claimed that his spouse had gone to her dad and mom’ home with out getting permission from him or his dad and mom.
“…The above averments will definitely make anybody with minimal quantity of frequent sense really feel as if the petitioner/husband as an employer employed respondent No.1 to do family chores and to take care of his dad and mom… Husband can’t compel spouse or coerce her to dwell in response to his needs and expectations. Marriage isn’t a license to regulate, command, dominate or conquer the individuality, freedom and can of the opposite occasion”, the courtroom added.
The Courtroom additional famous that the husband’s model concerning the spouse altering her angle submit marriage and failing to take care of her in-laws, indicated a want to ‘command and management the behaviour and desires’ of his spouse.
“…Spouse’s dedication to household can by no means be measured by obedience and submission. Marriage isn’t a relationship between unequals. Any try or enterprise to deprive the autonomy of girl or to limit her liberty merely basing on gender is opposite to the ideas of equality and in opposition to the constitutional spirit of human dignity and social justice”, the courtroom emphasised in its order.
Upholding the Tumkuru Household Courtroom’s order of Rs. 9,000 per 30 days (Rs. 5,000 for the spouse and Rs. 4,000 for the minor daughter), the Excessive Courtroom opined that even that quantity isn’t enough contemplating the inflation.
“…Within the present-day state of affairs, worth escalation and value of dwelling Rs.150/- per head per day is not going to be enough for eking out livelihood a minimum of with minimal requirements. The petitioner is earlier than this courtroom looking for additional discount. Nevertheless, within the mild of the dialogue that went on supra, this Courtroom doesn’t discover any grounds both for setting apart or modifying the impugned order”, the courtroom concluded whereas dismissing the felony revision petition.
Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT No. 9 OF 2026
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
