The Karnataka High Court recently questioned why Indian women are expected to take permission from members of the matrimonial home to visit their own parents' home..Justice Chillakur Sumalatha said that wives cannot be expected to solely do household work."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 duty of taking care of parents vests upon the son or the daughter and not on the son-in-law or daughter-in-law, the Court added. Reiterating the choice every woman has, the Court said,"A woman has fundamental and absolute right to make decisions concerning her career, finances, etc. Huband 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 was hearing a revision petition filed by a man working as a coolie against a family court order directing him to pay ₹9,000 per month to his estranged wife and their daughter.While the wife had sought maintenance of ₹30,000, the family court had granted an amount of ₹9,000.Before the High Court, the husband submitted that his wife did not take care of his parents and do the household work. He went on to say she had gone to her parents' house without his permission too many times.The wife alleged that she was assaulted, abused and left injured by the husband and his family. She claimed that she had to tolerate the husband's habits of gambling and alcoholism. Despite the husband now seeking divorce, she was ready to join him..The Court at the outset noted that the wife was justified in leaving the matrimonial home. It observed that the husband's submissions made it seem like he was an employer and the wife was like his employee. "His version that his wife i.e., respondent No.1 herein has left the house without his permission and the permission of his parents and had gone to her parents house reveals the mindset of the petitioner and exhibits his desire to command and control the behaviour and wishes of his wife i.e., the first respondent herein.".The Court said that a husband could not compel or coerce his wife to forgo her autonomy and right to make decisions relating to her career and finances."Marriage is not a license to control, command, dominate or conquer the individuality, freedom and will of the other party," the Court said, adding that a wife's devotion to her family could not be judged by her submissiveness or obedience. .It thus refused to modify the maintenance granted to the wife by the family court..Advocates Shivamurthy and S Kumar appeared for the husband..[Read Order]
