Wife Needs No Permission to Visit Her Parents, Karnataka HC Upholds Rs 9,000 Maintenance

Karnataka High Court dismisses a husband's revision against a Family Court maintenance order, rejecting his claim that his wife left home without permission as grounds to deny her upkeep.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband who sought to reduce or set aside a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs 5,000 per month to his wife and Rs 4,000 per month to his minor daughter as maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, sitting singly, found no merit in the petition and used the occasion to record that a wife requires no one's permission — not her husband's, not her in-laws' — to visit her parents. The court held that the wife had sufficient cause to leave the matrimonial home and that the combined award of Rs 9,000 per month, working out to Rs 150 per head per day, was not excessive given present-day costs of living.

The Maintenance Dispute Before the Court

Sathish, a resident of Kuluvanahalli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, married Smt. Jyothi G.R. The couple has a minor daughter, Kum. Charithrya S., aged about five years. After the wife left the matrimonial home along with the child, she and the minor daughter approached the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, filing a petition under Section 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000.

The Family Court, by its order dated 5 November 2025 in Crl.Misc.No.6/2025, partly allowed the petition. It directed Sathish to pay Rs 5,000 per month to his wife and Rs 4,000 per month to his minor daughter — a total of Rs 9,000 per month. Sathish challenged that order before the Karnataka High Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, arguing the amounts were exorbitant given his financial position.

Respondents did not contest the revision. Notice upon Respondent No. 1 was held sufficient and served, and Respondent No. 2, being a minor, was represented by Respondent No. 1.

What Each Side Told the Family Court

Sathish's counsel submitted before the High Court that the wife had left the matrimonial home voluntarily, that he had never neglected or refused to maintain the respondents, and that he earns his livelihood through coolie work. He also stated that he has to maintain his parents. On that basis, his counsel argued that paying Rs 9,000 per month was beyond his means and sought modification of the order.

The wife's version, as placed before the court, was markedly different. According to her, the couple lived together happily for about two years before she was subjected to abuse and assault by the husband and his family members for trivial reasons. She was also tortured to bring more money from her parental home. The husband, she alleged, developed habits of gambling and consuming alcohol and assaulted her on several occasions, causing her injuries. She stated that despite all this, she was willing to return and fulfil her marital obligations. The husband, for his part, had filed a divorce petition.

The husband's statement of objections before the Family Court contained a specific grievance: that after the first six months of marriage, the wife changed her attitude toward his parents, did not do household work, and went to her parents' house multiple times without his permission or the permission of his parents. The High Court reproduced that passage verbatim.

The Court's Reasoning on Cause to Leave

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha was direct in her assessment of the husband's objections. The court observed that the husband's version — that the wife went to her parents' house without his permission and without the permission of his parents — read as though the husband had employed his wife as a domestic worker to perform household chores and look after his parents.

The court held that this version revealed the husband's desire to “command and control the behaviour and wishes of his wife.” It went on to state that it did not understand why an Indian woman is required to take permission from all present at her matrimonial home simply to visit her parents whenever she wishes.

On the question of household work and care of in-laws, the court set out its position plainly: household activities must be shared equally by men and women. If parents require care, the primary duty rests with their son or daughter, not with a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. Any such care by a daughter-in-law must be voluntary, not compelled.

On the broader question of a wife's autonomy, the court held that a husband cannot compel or coerce his wife to live according to his wishes and expectations. It stated that marriage is not a licence to control, command, dominate, or limit the individuality and freedom of the other party, and that any attempt to restrict a woman's autonomy on the basis of gender is contrary to the principles of equality and the constitutional values of human dignity and social justice.

Against that backdrop, the court held that Respondent No. 1 had sufficient cause to leave the company of her husband. That finding disposed of the central premise of the revision petition, namely that the wife had left voluntarily without cause and that the husband had not neglected her.

On the Quantum of Maintenance

The court then turned to the argument that the maintenance amounts were exorbitant. It broke down the arithmetic: Rs 9,000 per month for two persons comes to Rs 300 per day, or Rs 150 per head per day. The court observed that in the present day, given price escalation and the cost of living, Rs 150 per head per day is not sufficient even for a minimum standard of livelihood.

The husband had approached the High Court seeking a further reduction below the Family Court's already-reduced award (the original claim was Rs 30,000). The court found no ground, either for setting aside or modifying the impugned order. It held that the revision petition lacked merits.

Order

The revision petition in RPFC No. 9 of 2026 was dismissed by Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha on 3 August 2026. The Family Court's order dated 5 November 2025 — directing payment of Rs 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs 4,000 per month to the minor daughter under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — stands in full.