‘Non-earning doesn’t mean idle’: Delhi High Court affirms value of homemaker’s work; grants maintenance

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday said that disregarding the work of a homemaker is unjust, as it helped their spouse function effectively.Hearing a case of grant of maintenance to an estranged wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a wife's unemployment could not be equated with idleness or deliberate dependence, and the law must recognise the economic value of her contribution to the home. "The assumption that a non-earning spouse is 'idle' reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contributions," justice Sharma said. "To describe non-employment as idleness is easy; to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult," she added.A magisterial court had earlier refused to grant interim maintenance to the woman on the grounds that she was able-bodied and well-educated but had chosen not to seek employment. The high court noted that the ability to earn and actual earnings are two different things, and simply having the capacity to earn cannot be used as a reason to deny maintenance. “Running a household, taking care of children, supporting the family, and adjusting one’s life around the career and transfers of the earning spouse are all forms of work,” the court said. “These tasks are unpaid and often unrecognised, and they do not show up in bank statements or taxable income. Yet, they form the invisible framework that keeps many families going,” it said. The court also noted that in Indian society, women are still often expected to leave employment after marriage. However, in many matrimonial disputes, husbands have wrongly argued against paying maintenance to their well-qualified wives by claiming they chose not to work. It also recognised that a woman who leaves her profession because of marriage or family responsibilities cannot be expected to return later at the same level, salary, or professional standing she once held. In this case, the court found no evidence of any past or current employment or earnings by the wife and awarded her Rs 50,000 under the law protecting women from domestic violence.