The income and compensation of Homemakers: analysis over the years

The value of Housewife, nay, Homemakers.

?

The Supreme Court in its Handbook for combatting gender stereotypes had replaced housewife with homemaker, for writing judgements and filing cases.

?

The judgement on granting compensation to a “housewife” has been applauded across nation, however it’s not the first time such judgement has come from the Apex Court. In ?Arvind Kumar Pandey and ors vs Girish Pandey and anr ,the Court held that ?It goes without saying that the role of a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a home-maker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a home-maker is of a high order and invaluable

In 2015, Bombay High Court held that Role of housewife least appreciated, directed compensation to family 15 years after death

On February 3, 2007, the tribunal rejected the claim on the grounds that the actual age of the deceased has been suppressed, the husband is the earning member of the family therefore cannot claim compensation and that the sons were both majors.

Stating that “the role of a ‘housewife’ is most challenging and an important role which deserves much appreciation but least appreciated”, the Bombay High Court has directed an insurance company to pay the family of a labourer more than ?8 lakh as compensation with 6% interest from 2007. (Rambhau vs. Oriental Insurance Co.)

?

In 2020 ?Madras High Court noted that the value of the homemaker’s contribution was irreplaceable and cannot be compared to that of an “ordinary employee”. It enhanced a compensation amount of Rs. 8.46 lacs to Rs 14.07 lakhs judgement

?“Concept that Home makers do not ?"Work" or that they do not add economic value to the household is a problematic idea, that has persisted for many years and must be overcome” The Supreme Court had held in Motor Vehicle compensation case. A 3 judge bench where Justice Surya Kant’s judgement was supplemented by Justice Ramana where the concept of notional income of housewife was introduced.

One of the deceased in this case was a home maker. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs 40.71 lakhs for both deceased to the claimants. Partly allowing the appeal filed by Insurance Company, the High Court reversed the addition of future prospects.

?In?India,?according?to?the?2011 Census, nearly 159.85 million women stated that “household work” was their main occupation, as compared to only 5.79 million?men. “ Women on average spent 16.9 and 2.6 percent of their day on unpaid domestic services and unpaid caregiving services for household members respectively, while men spent 1.7 and 0.8 percent.” Therefore, the issue of fixing notional income for a homemaker, therefore, serves extremely important functions. “It is a recognition of the multitude of women who are engaged in this activity, whether by choice or as a result of social/cultural norms. It signals to society at large that the law and the Courts of the land believe in the value of the labour, services and sacrifices of homemakers. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation’s international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all....”

One category of nonearning victims that Courts are often called upon to calculate the compensation for are homemakers. The granting of compensation for homemakers on a pecuniary basis, as in the present case, has been considered by this Court earlier on numerous occasions. A threeJudge Bench of this Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197, while dealing with compensation for the victims of a fire during a function, granted compensation to housewives on the basis of the services rendered by them in the house, and their age. Kirti vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd [CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1920 of 2021

In 2022, Gauhati High Court held, " to tag a house wife as a 'skilled worker' alone does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a home manager. In Lata Wadha & Ors v State olf Bihar & Ors. (2001) The Apex Court had evaluated the contribution of a housewife at Rs. 3,000/- per month. 32 years had lapsed since. Hence, the High Court computed compensation at Rs5,000

Sri Mrinal Kanti Debnath and 6 Ors v. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd and 2 Ors.

The judgements, do bring more recognition to economic value of homemakers, even though society does not put same value on the roles of homemakers and view them as mere housewives. The due respect and recognition will take time, even though judgements are setting a precedent.