Wife need not seek permission to visit her parents or be forced to serve in-laws, Karnataka HC says while upholding maintenance award

The petitioner-husband challenged the order dated 5 November 2025 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, in Crl. Misc. No. 6 of 2025.

The wife and minor daughter had sought maintenance under Section 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), claiming ₹30,000 per month.

The Family Court awarded ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹4,000 per month to the minor daughter.

The husband contended that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, that he had neither neglected nor refused to maintain the respondents, and that he earned his livelihood through coolie work while also supporting his parents.

The wife alleged physical and mental cruelty, demands for additional money, and the husband’s addiction to gambling and alcohol; she nevertheless expressed willingness to resume matrimonial life.

The husband alleged that she failed to perform household duties, did not care for his parents, and left for her parental home without obtaining his or his parents’ permission.

The respondents did not contest the revision petition despite service of notice.

Whether the wife had sufficient cause to live separately from the husband and was therefore entitled to maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS

Whether the Family Court’s award of ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹4,000 per month to the minor daughter was excessive and required modification in revision

Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court’s order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984

The Court applied Section 144(1) of the BNSS, 2023, which authorises an order of maintenance in favour of a wife and minor child unable to maintain themselves where the husband or father has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain them.

The Court also considered the statutory limitation concerning a wife living separately without sufficient reason and held that the wife’s entitlement must be assessed in light of whether she had justifiable cause to reside apart.

The revision was examined under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

As a matter of constitutional and matrimonial principle, the Court held that marriage does not authorise a husband to control, command, or restrict his wife’s autonomy; household work and care of in-laws cannot be imposed upon a daughter-in-law as a compulsory obligation, and such responsibilities must be voluntary.

The High Court rejected the husband’s assertion that the wife’s departure from the matrimonial home was unjustified. In particular, the husband’s objection that she had visited her parental home without his and his parents’ permission, and his grievance that she had not performed household duties or cared for his parents, were viewed as reflecting an impermissible expectation that the wife was subordinate to the husband and his family.

The Court held that a wife is not required to obtain permission to visit her parents and that caring for in-laws is not a compulsory legal duty of a daughter-in-law.

In view of the wife’s allegations of abuse, assault, monetary demands, and the husband’s alleged alcohol and gambling habits, the Court found sufficient cause for her separate residence.

On quantum, the Court noted that the total maintenance of ₹9,000 per month amounted to ₹300 per day for two persons, or ₹150 per person per day, which was not excessive considering contemporary prices and the cost of living.

Accordingly, the Court found no ground for revisional interference.

It further held that the Family Court’s award of ₹5,000 per month to the wife and ₹4,000 per month to the minor daughter was neither exorbitant nor liable to reduction.

The revision petition was dismissed, and the Family Court’s order dated 5 November 2025 was affirmed.