Homemaker does not ‘sit idle’, law must value her contribution: Delhi HC

Delhi: The Delhi High Court has observed that a homemaker cannot be considered “idle” and that the law must acknowledge the economic worth of her contribution within a domestic relationship.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked that labelling a non-earning spouse as “idle” reflects a flawed understanding of domestic responsibilities. She noted that while it may be easy to describe non-employment as idleness, recognising the labour involved in managing and sustaining a household is far more challenging.

“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 further observed: “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.”

The observations came while the Court was deciding cross-revision petitions arising from matrimonial proceedings between a husband and wife over interim maintenance for the wife and their minor adopted son.

The couple married in 2012 and later relocated to Kuwait, where the husband was employed. In 2020, they returned to India during the COVID-19 pandemic. The wife alleged that the husband subsequently deserted her and their minor son and went back abroad.

She later initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking maintenance.

Setting aside the trial court’s refusal to grant interim maintenance, the High Court held that a wife’s educational qualifications or capacity to earn cannot, by themselves, justify denial of maintenance.

The Court found that the wife had established a case for interim maintenance, as there was no evidence on record indicating that she had sufficient independent income to support herself or meet daily 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.

Before concluding, Justice Sharma reflected on how maintenance disputes often turn highly adversarial once they enter courtrooms, with parties treating litigation as a battle to win rather than a problem to resolve.

The Court also noted a recurring pattern in such cases: wives may sometimes overstate monthly expenses, while husbands may understate income or claim financial hardship.

“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 observed.

“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.

(With Live Law inputs)