Judicial Recognition of Women’s Household Services as Valuable Family Contribution: A Progressive Legal Evolution in Homemaker Compensation in India

 

Introduction

The Indian judiciary has increasingly acknowledged the economic value of homemakers’ contributions to their families, marking a significant departure from traditional legal perspectives that undervalued domestic work. This evolution reflects changing social attitudes and constitutional commitments to gender equality and human dignity. The landmark judgment in Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish Pandey demonstrated this progressive shift by establishing that homemakers in India deserve fair compensation, aligning with minimum wage standards, in motor accident cases.

The issue came into sharp focus when courts were called upon to determine appropriate homemaker compensation in India for families who lost homemakers in accidents. Historically, domestic work performed by women was either ignored or vastly underestimated in monetary terms, reflecting deeper societal biases about unpaid care work. However, recent judicial pronouncements have challenged these outdated notions by recognizing that household services constitute substantial economic contributions deserving legal protection and adequate valuation.

Legal Framework Governing Compensation Claims

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the primary statutory framework for compensating victims of road accidents and their families. Section 166 of this legislation empowers claimants to seek redressal from Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. The provision states that applications for compensation can be filed by persons who have sustained injuries, property owners whose property was damaged, or legal representatives of deceased victims. This section ensures that families have a legal mechanism to claim damages when they lose breadwinners or, equally important, homemakers who provided invaluable services. [1]

Section 168 of the same Act grants tribunals the authority to award compensation after examining evidence and determining liability. Courts apply the multiplier method to calculate compensation, which involves assessing the deceased person’s income, deducting personal expenses, and multiplying the resulting dependency amount by an age-based multiplier. This methodology ensures that compensation accounts for both immediate losses and future economic deprivation faced by surviving family members. [2]

Minimum Wages Act, 1948

The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 establishes wage floors for scheduled employments across India. While initially designed to protect employed workers from exploitation, courts have innovatively applied its principles to determine notional income for homemakers. The Act empowers both Central and State Governments to fix minimum wages considering cost of living, with periodic revisions to account for inflation through Variable Dearness Allowance adjustments every six months. Section 3 of the Act specifically deals with fixing minimum rates of wages payable to employees, and Section 11 addresses payment requirements, stating that employers must pay wages at rates not less than the minimum rate fixed by appropriate notifications. These provisions have become reference points for courts valuing homemakers’ contributions. [3]

The Landmark Arvind Kumar Pandey Decision

In February 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a groundbreaking judgment in Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish Pandey that fundamentally reshaped compensation jurisprudence for homemakers. The case involved a fifty-year-old homemaker, Sushma Pandey, who died in a motor accident on June 26, 2006, when the vehicle she was traveling in lost control and fell into a ditch. Her husband and children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of sixteen lakh eighty-five thousand rupees. The tribunal initially dismissed the petition on grounds that the vehicle lacked insurance coverage.

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, held that even assuming the deceased was unemployed, she undoubtedly functioned as a homemaker whose direct and indirect monthly income could not be valued at less than wages admissible to daily wagers under the Minimum Wages Act applicable in Uttarakhand. The Court emphatically declared that the role of a homemaker equals the importance of family members earning tangible income as sources of family livelihood. The judgment further observed that if one counts the activities performed by homemakers individually, there would be little doubt that their contributions are of the highest order and truly invaluable. [4]

The Court acknowledged the inherent difficulty in assessing such contributions in monetary terms but insisted that justice required proper valuation. After considering all attending circumstances, the Supreme Court determined that Sushma Pandey’s monthly income at the relevant time could not have been less than four thousand rupees per month. This decision established a crucial precedent by linking homemaker valuation directly to statutory minimum wage standards rather than arbitrary assessments or outdated formulas that diminished women’s economic contributions.

The Kirti Judgment: Establishing Foundational Principles

A few years earlier, in January 2021, the Supreme Court in Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. had laid the groundwork for this progressive approach. This case involved a young couple, Vinod and Poonam, who died when a car collided with their motorcycle at a Delhi intersection on April 12, 2014. Their two young daughters and elderly parents filed compensation claims. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded forty lakh seventy-one thousand rupees, but the Delhi High Court reduced this amount citing contributory negligence and disallowing future prospects for the homemaker. [5]

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justices N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Surya Kant, partially allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by eleven lakh twenty thousand rupees, bringing the total to thirty-three lakh twenty thousand rupees. The Court articulated several fundamental principles that have since guided tribunals nationwide. Justice Ramana explained that recognizing notional income for homemakers serves an extremely important function because it signals to society that law and courts value the work, services, and sacrifices of homemakers. He emphasized that this recognition acknowledges how domestic activities contribute meaningfully to the economic condition of families and the broader economy, despite traditional exclusion from economic analyses.

The judgment identified two categories of cases requiring notional income determination. The first involves victims who were employed but whose actual income cannot be proven. The second encompasses non-earning victims including children, students, and homemakers. For homemakers specifically, the Court noted that compensation on a pecuniary basis is settled law. Various methods can determine notional income depending on case circumstances. One approach uses the Second Schedule formula from the Motor Vehicles Act calculating income as one-third of the earning spouse’s salary. Another is the opportunity cost method evaluating what homemakers might have earned had they worked outside the home. A third is the partnership method treating marriage as an equal economic partnership and valuing the homemaker’s contribution at half the working spouse’s income. [6]

Crucially, the Kirti judgment established that future prospects must be granted on notional income calculated for homemakers, just as they are for employed persons. This ensures that compensation accounts for skill improvements and inflation effects that would naturally occur over time. The Court emphasized that fixing homemakers’ notional income promotes constitutional visions of social equality and ensures dignity for all individuals, recognizing the gendered nature of housework where an overwhelming percentage of women perform this labor compared to men. [7]

Methodologies for Calculating Notional Income

Courts have developed flexible approaches to value homemakers’ contributions, recognizing that no single formula fits all situations. The judicial goal is approximating economic value for work that defies precise quantification while ensuring just compensation that neither undervalues nor excessively rewards claimants. The multiplier method remains the cornerstone of calculations. After determining notional income, courts deduct personal expenses typically ranging from one-third to fifty percent depending on whether the deceased was married and subtract amounts for additional dependents. The remaining figure is multiplied by an age-appropriate multiplier ranging from fifteen to eighteen for younger victims and decreasing as age increases.

When evidence permits, courts prefer the opportunity cost approach by examining the deceased’s education, skills, and local employment conditions to estimate earning potential had they pursued external employment. For instance, a homemaker with professional qualifications might be valued based on entry-level salaries in their field. The partnership method proves particularly useful when the surviving spouse has documented income, allowing straightforward calculation of half that amount as the deceased homemaker’s contribution. In the absence of specific evidence, courts increasingly reference state minimum wages for unskilled or semi-skilled workers as baseline figures that can be adjusted upward based on family circumstances, education levels, and cost of living in the relevant region.

The Kirti judgment emphasized that courts must ensure chosen methods and fixed notional income remain just in specific case circumstances, avoiding both conservative undervaluation and liberal overcompensation. Future prospects ranging from fifteen to forty percent should be added to notional income based on the deceased’s age, with younger homemakers receiving higher percentages reflecting longer potential for skill development and economic contribution. Additional components include loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate which together provide holistic compensation addressing both economic and emotional dimensions of loss.

Constitutional and Policy Considerations

Recognition of homemakers’ economic contributions aligns with fundamental constitutional principles. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Devaluing or ignoring women’s domestic labor perpetuates gender discrimination by implying that only paid work outside the home merits legal recognition and compensation. By establishing that homemakers deserve compensation calculated using the same principles applied to employed persons, courts advance constitutional equality mandates and challenge patriarchal assumptions embedded in traditional legal frameworks. [8]

Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal dignity extends to ensuring that legal systems recognize and value all forms of labor contributing to family welfare and social reproduction. Dignity requires acknowledgment that caring for children, managing households, supporting family members, and performing countless daily tasks constitute genuine work deserving respect and fair valuation. When courts fail to adequately compensate families for losing homemakers, they effectively declare that women’s unpaid labor lacks value, undermining their dignity and worth as human beings.

The 2011 Census revealed that nearly one hundred fifty-nine million women in India identified household work as their main occupation compared to only five million men, demonstrating the gendered nature of domestic labor. The National Statistical Office’s Time Use in India 2019 report, the country’s first comprehensive time use survey, provided empirical data quantifying women’s unpaid work hours and economic value. These statistics underscore that ignoring or undervaluing homemakers’ contributions affects vast numbers of women and their families, making judicial recognition of domestic work’s economic significance a matter of considerable social importance and gender justice.

Regulatory Framework and Enforcement Mechanisms

Motor Accident Claims Tribunals function as the primary forums for adjudicating compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. These specialized tribunals apply principles established by Supreme Court precedents while considering case-specific factors including the deceased’s age, number of dependents, family economic circumstances, and available evidence regarding income and contributions. Tribunals must balance ensuring adequate compensation with preventing windfall awards that exceed legitimate losses. Insurance companies frequently contest claims, particularly regarding notional income assessments for homemakers, making tribunal determinations subject to appeals before High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court.

The Minimum Wages Act’s enforcement machinery includes inspectors appointed under Section 19 who monitor compliance and investigate complaints regarding underpayment. While the Act primarily governs employer-employee relationships, its principles have been innovatively extended by courts to establish baseline valuations for homemakers’ notional income. State governments periodically revise minimum wage rates considering inflation and cost of living changes, ensuring that these baseline figures remain relevant when applied to homemaker compensation calculations. This regulatory framework provides objective, government-sanctioned wage standards that courts can reference, lending credibility and consistency to notional income determinations. [9]

Comparative Analysis and International Perspectives

India’s progressive judicial approach to valuing homemakers’ contributions reflects broader international trends recognizing unpaid care work’s economic significance. Australian Family Property Law has adopted gender-sensitive approaches treating domestic contributions as equivalent to financial contributions in property settlements following relationship breakdowns. The partnership model treating marriages as equal economic partnerships regardless of who earns wages has influenced Indian jurisprudence, particularly the Kirti judgment’s articulation of valuation methodologies. Several jurisdictions have implemented time use surveys quantifying hours spent on unpaid domestic work and calculating replacement costs if these services were purchased in the market.

The opportunity cost method employed by Indian courts mirrors approaches in other common law jurisdictions where hypothetical earning capacity based on education and skills serves as a valuation basis. However, India’s innovation lies in explicitly linking homemaker compensation to statutory minimum wage standards, providing a clear, objective foundation for calculations that reduces arbitrariness and ensures consistency across cases. This linkage also symbolically elevates homemakers’ status by equating their work with recognized categories of protected labor under employment legislation.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite significant progress, challenges remain in ensuring uniform application of progressive principles across all tribunals and courts. Regional variations in minimum wages create disparities in homemaker valuations depending on where accidents occur and claims are filed. Some tribunals may still apply outdated formulas like the one-third spouse income rule even when higher valuations are justified based on circumstances and recent precedents. Insurance companies continue challenging homemaker compensation awards, leading to protracted litigation that delays relief for bereaved families.

Future legal development should focus on establishing clearer guidelines that balance flexibility with consistency, ensuring that tribunals have sufficient discretion to address case-specific factors while preventing arbitrary undervaluation. Legislative amendments could explicitly recognize homemakers as a category deserving specified minimum notional income calculations, removing ambiguity and strengthening legal protections. Greater awareness among legal practitioners, judges, and claimants about recent Supreme Court pronouncements will facilitate proper implementation of progressive principles established in judgments like Arvind Kumar Pandey and Kirti.

Conclusion

The judicial recognition of homemakers’ household services as valuable family contributions marks a crucial milestone in India’s legal evolution toward gender equality and social justice. Supreme Court decisions in Arvind Kumar Pandey and Kirti represent more than technical adjustments to compensation calculations—they signify the growing acknowledgment of homemaker compensation in India as a legitimate and essential legal consideration. These judgments embody profound recognition that women’s unpaid domestic labor sustains families, enables others’ economic participation, and deserves legal respect and adequate valuation. By linking homemaker compensation to minimum wage standards and mandating consideration of future prospects, courts have established frameworks that properly recognize the economic significance of work traditionally rendered invisible by patriarchal social structures and legal systems.

These progressive judgments align with constitutional commitments to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination while reflecting changing societal attitudes toward gender roles and women’s contributions. As India continues developing its legal framework for addressing gender-based inequalities, the principles established in homemaker compensation cases provide models for how law can actively challenge historical injustices and promote substantive equality. The journey toward full recognition and proper valuation of women’s unpaid work continues, but recent judicial pronouncements have marked significant advances that benefit countless families while affirming that all labor sustaining families and society merits legal protection and fair compensation.

References

[1] LiveLaw. (2024). “Homemaker’s Deemed Income Can’t Be Less Than Minimum Wages Notified For Daily Wager: Supreme Court.” Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/homemakers-deemed-income-cant-be-less-than-minimum-wages-notified-for-daily-wager-supreme-court-250245 

[2] Bar and Bench. (2024). “Homemaker’s role as important as role of earning members in family: Supreme Court.” Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/homemaker-role-as-important-earning-members-family-supreme-court 

[3] ClearTax. (2025). “Minimum Wages Act 1948: Rules and Applicability.” Available at: https://cleartax.in/s/minimum-wages-act 

[4] Supreme Court Cases. (2024). “Arvind Kumar Pandey and Others v. Girish Pandey and Another.” Available at: https://www.supremecourtcases.com/arvind-kumar-pandey-and-others-v-girish-pandey-and-another/ 

[5] Indian Kanoon. (2021). “Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 5 January, 2021.” Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106405133/ 

[6] VidhiNama. (2023). “Case Analysis: Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC 166.” Available at: https://vidhinama.com/case-analysis-kirti-v-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-2021-2-scc-166/ 

[7] Oxford Human Rights Hub. “Role of Minimum Wages in Recognition of Unpaid Domestic Care Work in India.” Available at: https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/role-of-minimum-wages-in-recognition-of-unpaid-domestic-care-work-in-india-a-sign-of-progress/ 

[8] Indian Kanoon. “The Minimum Wages Act, 1948.” Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142278/ 

[9] S.S. Rana & Co. (2023). “Compensation for Home-Makers of the Nation.” Available at: https://ssrana.in/articles/compensation-for-home-makers-supreme-court/ 

Authorized and Published by Sneh Purohit