Wife Need Not Take Permission To Visit Parents; Can't Be Forced To Look After In-Laws: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife cannot be compelled to seek permission from her husband or in-laws to visit her parents, nor can she be forced to perform household work or look after her in-laws.

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha made the observations while dismissing a husband's revision petition challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹5,000 per month to his wife and ₹4,000 to their minor daughter as maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The husband, Sathish, had approached the High Court seeking reduction of the maintenance awarded to his wife and daughter.

He contended that his wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home with their daughter and that he had neither neglected nor refused to maintain them. He also submitted that he earned his livelihood through coolie work and had to support his parents, making the monthly maintenance of ₹9,000 difficult for him to pay.

The wife, however, alleged that she had been subjected to abuse, assault and demands for additional money by her husband and his family. She also alleged that her husband was in the habit of gambling and consuming alcohol and had assaulted her on several occasions.

Court questions demand for permission to visit parents

While setting out his case, the husband had alleged that his wife repeatedly went to her parents' house “without permission of the respondent and his parents.”

Taking strong exception to this assertion, the Court observed: "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 wish and feels to go. This Court is of the view that 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 added that the husband had treated his wife as though she were an ‘employee’ engaged to perform household chores and look after his parents.

It remarked: "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 voluntarily act, but not by force."

The Court added that household activities have to be shared equally by men and women. In light of these observations, the High Court concluded that the wife had sufficient cause to leave the company of her husband.

The Court then proceeded to make broader observations concerning autonomy within marriage. It said that while marriage brings two people together through ceremonies, love, trust, respect, mutual support and understanding make them companions and partners in life.

The Court observed: "A woman has got 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."

The Court also said that a wife's dedication to her family cannot be measured through obedience and submission, adding: "Marriage is not a relationship between unequals."

It held that attempts to deprive a woman of autonomy or restrict her liberty merely on the basis of gender are contrary to equality, human dignity and social justice.

On the husband's challenge to the quantum of maintenance as excessive, the High Court noted that the Family Court's order required him to pay a total of ₹9,000 per month ₹5,000 to his wife and ₹4,000 to their minor daughter.

It noted that the amount works out to ₹300 per day for both, or ₹150 per person per day. The High Court observed that, considering the escalation in prices and present-day cost of living, ₹150 per person per day would not be sufficient even for maintaining minimum standards of livelihood.

The Court consequently found no ground to interfere with the Family Court's order and dismissed the revision petition. Thus, the direction requiring the husband to pay ₹9,000 monthly maintenance to his wife and minor daughter was upheld.

Case Title: S v. J And Ors

Date of Order: August 3, 2026

Bench: Justice Chillakur Sumalatha