Homemaker Doesn't 'Sit Idle', Law Must Recognize Economic Value Of Her Contribution To Domestic Relationship: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a homemaker does not sit idle and the law must recognise the economic value of her contribution to the domestic relationship.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the assumption that a non-earning spouse is “idle” reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contribution, as describing non-employment as idleness is easy but to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult.

“A homemaker does not “sit idle”; she performs labour that enables the earning spouse to function effectively. To disregard this contribution while adjudicating claims of maintenance would be unrealistic and unjust,” the Court said.

It added: “The law must recognise not only financial earnings but also the economic value of the contribution of the wife within the home and domestic relationship during the subsistence of the marriage.”

Justice Sharma made the observations while deciding cross-revision petitions arising from matrimonial disputes between a husband and wife concerning interim maintenance for her and their minor adopted son.

The parties got married in 2012 and later moved to Kuwait, where the husband was employed. In 2020, they returned to India during the COVID-19 pandemic, after which the wife alleged that the husband deserted her and their minor son and returned abroad.

The wife subsequently filed proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), seeking maintenance from the husband.

While setting aside the trial court denial of interim maintenance to the wife, the Court said that merely because a wife is educated or capable of earning cannot be a ground to deny her interim maintenance.

The Court held that the wife had made out a case for grant of interim maintenance in her favour, as there was no material on record to suggest that she was earning any income sufficient to maintain herself or meet her day-to-day expenses.

“Where a wife is not working, is managing the household, caring for a minor child and/or the elderly of the family, and the husband has a steady and substantial income, the grant of maintenance is rooted in the principle of equity between the parties. Maintenance, in such cases, is meant to place both parties at reasonably comparable levels so that each is able to sustain a dignified life,” the Court said.

While parting with the case, the judge acknowledged the manner in which maintenance proceedings often become intensely adversarial. The Court said that once matrimonial disputes reach the courtrooms, both the parties begin to approach the litigation as a contest to be won rather than a problem to be resolved.

Another tendency, the Court noted, is that in such contested proceedings, the wife may at times overstate her monthly expenses, while the husband often understates his income or pleads financial incapacity.

“Courts are then left to sift through competing versions, which prolongs the cases pending before the Courts. This adversarial approach rarely serves the long-term interests of either party, and least of all those of minor children who are directly affected by prolonged disputes,” the Court said.

“In this backdrop, this Court is of the view that mediation, rather than continued litigation, offers a more constructive path forward in matrimonial disputes. Mediation, undoubtedly, provides a better space for meaningful dialogue, realistic assessment of needs and capacities of both the husband and the wife, and mutually acceptable solutions,” it added.

Title: X v. Y

Click here to read order