By PK.Balachandran/Sunday Observer
Colombo, August 4: On July 10, Justice Ms. B.V.Nagarathna of the Indian Supreme Court ruled that husbands should share their financial resources with their wives if the latter do not have an independent source of income.
Justice Nagarathna said that a married man must “financially empower” his homemaker wife. He may give her access to his financial resources and bank accounts, she said.
Of course, the judge drew a distinction between financially independent or employed married women and those who remain at home without any access to finance.
Interestingly, judge Nagarathna gave the ruling though there is no Indian law that directly or indirectly recognises a housewife’s intangible contribution to the earnings of her husband and has no provision for compensating her for her contribution.
Nagarathna’s judgement has been welcomed by liberal-minded lawyers, academics and women’s rights workers. It could trigger a slew of similar judgements, eventually leading to the enactment of a law making it mandatory to share financial resources with a non-working homemaker wife.
Traditionally, it has been the responsibility of the husband to go out to work and bring in the money. Members of his family, including his wife, enjoy the income collectively. There is no system of apportioning the man’s earnings between the couple or other members of the family. In most cases, while the wife is consulted or heard out, it is the man who broadly decides how the money is to be spent.
Divorce Case
Justice Nagarathna made her point in a divorce case involving a Muslim woman, who had sought maintenance from her husband under Sec 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSSS), India’s new Criminal Procedure Code.
“It is well-known that an Indian homemaker who has no independent source of income tries to save as much money as possible from the monthly household budget, not only to augment the financial resources of the family but also to save a small portion for her personal expenses. Such a practice is followed in order to avoid making a request to the husband or his family for her personal expenses,” Justice Nagarathna said.
“Most married men in India do not realise the predicament of their homemaker wives, whose request for expenses may be bluntly turned down by them or their family. Some husbands are not conscious of the fact that the wife, who has no independent source of finance, is dependent on them not only emotionally but also financially.”
“On the other hand, a wife who is referred to as a homemaker is working throughout the day for the welfare of the family without expecting anything in return except possibly love and affection, a sense of comfort and respect from her husband and his family. Even this may be lacking in certain households,” the Judge observed.
Madras High Court
Passing an order in a domestic dispute over property in June 2023, the Madras High Court allowed a housewife an equal share in her husband’s property.
In fact, this was the first time that an Indian court formally recognised the contribution of a housewife to the husband’s total income, a BBC report on the case said.
However, the court made it clear that its verdict would not be binding on other Indian courts unless the country’s Supreme Court ruled along similar lines.
The case before the Madras High Court involved a couple from Tamil Nadu who were married in 1965. In 1982, the husband moved to Saudi Arabia for a job. His wife, who stayed back in India, had no income of her own. Yet, she bought real estate and jewellery using the money the husband sent home.
On his return to India in 1994, the man alleged that his wife was trying to claim sole ownership over all their properties bought with his money. He also claimed that she was hiding her gold jewellery and wanted to sell an asset by giving the power of attorney to a person with whom she was allegedly having an affair.
In 1995, the man filed a case before a trial court to claim ownership over all the assets. When the man died in 2007, his children pursued his claim in the court.
The Madras High Court, in its verdict given in 2023, said that the wife had contributed equally towards the acquisition of the family’s assets. She had contributed to her husband’s wealth by looking after the family in his absence and enabling him to concentrate on his job. Both husband and wife were equally entitled to whatever they earned by their joint effort, the court said.
The spouse who looked and cared after the family would be entitled to an equal share. It did not matter in whose name the property was bought, the court added.
In the absence of the homemaker, the husband would have to employ outsiders to do her work and pay for the services, the court pointed out.
“By performing these skills, a wife makes the home a comfortable environment. It is certainly not a valueless job. Hers is a full time job without holidays, while her husband works only 8 hours in a day,”the court said.
According to BBC, there are about 160 million homemaker wives in India. They spend 297 minutes a day doing domestic work, compared to 31 minutes by men. Only a quarter of men are engaged in unpaid chores, compared to four-fifths of women,” BBC reported.
Lawyers and women’s rights activists have argued for the grant of salaries to housewives. Legal researcher, Gautam Bhatia, described unpaid housework as “forced labour”.
Women in Work Force.
The UN has pointed out that unpaid domestic work is an obstacle to women joining the work force outside where they will be paid. There is a dire need for a system to push women to get work outside the home and be paid a reasonable wage for it.
Female labour participation in India and most of South Asia is abysmally low and is of much concern. But the labour movement in these countries has not taken up the issue of low female labour participation, not to speak of paying homemakers.
The philosophical basis of homemakers’ entitlement to pay is derived from the notion that if something comes into being as the product of an individual’s labour, then that individual is entitled to the profit and benefit of such a product because its existence is a result of that individual’s labour.
The homemaker looks after the children and keeps the house, which is a major contribution to the family, society and economy. It is estimated that globally, the value of a housemaker’s services would be equivalent to approximately £30,000 (US$ 40,000) per year.
Counter Arguments
The counter argument is that household work is a form of voluntary work like charitable work which is not paid. And just as working for a charity free of charge gives one moral fulfilment and an intangible joy, working as a homemaker has its own “remuneration” in the form of a happy family environment and a healthy lifestyle.
On the other hand, by paying housewives for their work, homemaking may be commodified and quantified thus taking away the essence from it, degrading it as it were.
Paying housewives will de-incentivise seeking jobs and careers outside the home and blunt the urge to be upwardly mobile economically socially. A large proportion of the female population may thus suffer from a lack of incentive to venture out and go up in life and realise their ambitions.
Women may be discouraged from seeking to fulfil their own dreams by creating their own careers. This could turn out to be socially destructive in the long run.
END
