I just remembered how my parents back then usually stress how I will thrown out of my husband's house if I continue doing this and that... That notion has always pissed me off!

Lets look at it this way...

Sun and rain are two different and Opposing phenomena

But their individual and distinct services are needed to nurture a plant.

One is not superior to the other in the affairs of plant growth, the sun doesn't own the plant and the rain is considered a disposable attachment neither does the rain own the plant for the sun to be considered a disposable attachment.

They simply work in harmony to see to the success of the plant's growth. Mind you, if any of them decide to back out, the damage will be on the plant not directly on the other partner.

Let marriage be the plant, husband and wife play their distinct roles to nurture it.

Back to my topic: you make a wife seem like a disposable attachment and you push ownership of marriage to the husband by referring to their official physical place of cohabitation as 'husband's house'.

How? Why? What for? As awkward as wife's house sounds, that's the same way husband's house sounds to me.

He's the head of the marriage. Does that make him the owner of the marriage? God is the owner of marriage.

Neither husband nor wife owns the home, their meeting point is in matrimony so it is MATRIMONIAL HOME.

He paid for the house... And so what? That's his own mutually allotted duty for the matrimony to stand.

For further understanding... Think of the roles of pepper and salt in a typical calabar Edikanikong soup.