In a landmark judgement delivered on June 11, 2026, the Supreme Court recognised a distinct head of compensation called ‘loss of unpaid domestic care’ in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. In several other recent judgements, courts have acknowledged the undervaluation of domestic labour and awarded enhanced compensation on the grounds that household work is an economically valuable contribution to the family. In a rapidly automating yet, ironically, overworked economy, these rulings nudge post-work economics into mainstream discourse.
The apex court held that in cases where a homemaker makes no direct monetary contribution to the household, a notional monthly income of INR 30,000 should be adopted for the purpose of calculating compensation, subject to a 10 per cent increase every three years.
The case at hand arose from an appeal against a compensation of INR 8.43 lakhs awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court following the death of a woman in 2001. Her husband and three children had initially approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) and were awarded INR 2.42 lakhs in 2003. However, the family, dissatisfied with the compensation, subsequently appealed to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court.
The apex court held that in cases where a homemaker makes no direct monetary contribution to the household, a notional monthly income of INR 30,000 should be adopted for the purpose of calculating compensation, subject to a 10 per cent increase every three years. Where the homemaker does directly contribute to the household income, compensation for unpaid domestic care is to be awarded in addition to any proven income.
The court observed that it is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependent on the earning members of a household when, in reality, the household’s functioning depends substantially on the homemaker, upon whom the earning members themselves rely, a reality that is rarely acknowledged.
The court observed that it is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependent on the earning members of a household when, in reality, the household’s functioning depends substantially on the homemaker, upon whom the earning members themselves rely, a reality that is rarely acknowledged.
The court also noted that around sixteen billion hours are spent each day on unpaid domestic work and caregiving globally, and that women’s unpaid care work is estimated to contribute between 15 and 17 per cent of India’s GDP. It added that it is high time the invisible was made visible.
The invisible made visible
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while hearing an appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act on March 26, 2026, awarded the injured party compensation of INR 6, 97, 200 along with interest, recognising the need to properly assess a woman’s role within the household. While enhancing compensation in a motor accident claim, the court reaffirmed the economic value of a homemaker’s contribution, holding that domestic work cannot be undervalued or equated with unskilled labour.
The deceased had worked intermittently as a semi-skilled beautician, and the court held that her income from that work had to be assessed at least in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. At the same time, it emphasised that her work as a homemaker could not be equated with unskilled labour, given the multifarious services she rendered to her family without fixed working hours or leave. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal was enhanced by 40 per cent.
The 2001 Census classified those engaged in household duties as non-workers. In the 2011 Census, 159.9 million women, compared with only 5.8 million men, reported household work as their principal occupation. A 2009 study estimated the value of Indian women’s unpaid work at more than $600 billion annually, while the 2019 Time Use In India report found that Indian women spend an average of 299 minutes per day on unpaid household services, compared with 97 minutes for men.
A 2009 study estimated the value of Indian women’s unpaid work at more than $600 billion annually, while the 2019 Time Use In India report found that Indian women spend an average of 299 minutes per day on unpaid household services, compared with 97 minutes for men.
On February 16, the Delhi High Court also delivered an underreported yet historic judgment. The court granted maintenance to an estranged wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, overturning a Magistrate’s order that had denied her maintenance on the grounds that she was able-bodied and educated but had ‘chosen’ not to work.
The parties married in 2012 and have a minor son. The husband had been employed in Kuwait since 2015, but left the country in 2020 and never returned. The wife subsequently sought maintenance. While the Magistrate awarded INR 10,000 per month for the child, the wife’s maintenance plea was rejected. On appeal, the amount was enhanced to INR 50,000 and later to INR 60,000 per month before being withdrawn, citing undisclosed bank transactions.
Meanwhile, during parallel proceedings in the Family Court, it was found that the husband earned between INR 4 lakhs and INR 5.3 lakhs per month, with his savings exceeding INR 1 crore. The court accordingly awarded maintenance of INR 50,000 per month to the wife and INR 40,000 per month to the child. Faced with conflicting rulings, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s orders. The bench held that a wife’s non-employment cannot be categorised as ‘idleness’ or deliberate dependence when determining maintenance, recognising that a homemaker’s contribution has economic value and is vital to the functioning of the household.
The judge observed that while it is easy to describe non-employment as ‘idleness’, it is far more difficult to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household. She also noted that women are often expected to be highly qualified in order to be considered eligible for marriage, yet are ‘disallowed’ by their spouses and in-laws from pursuing employment afterwards.
The judge observed that while it is easy to describe non-employment as ‘idleness’, it is far more difficult to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household. She noted that managing a household, raising children, and adjusting one’s life around a spouse’s career are all forms of work, even when unpaid and unacknowledged. She also acknowledged that women are often expected to be highly qualified in order to be considered eligible for marriage, yet are ‘disallowed’ by their spouses and in-laws from pursuing employment afterwards. The judge also flagged the increasingly adversarial nature of maintenance proceedings, where claims of the wife’s ‘deliberate unemployment’ have become a common defence used by husbands.
Earlier judgements echo this reasoning as well. In a 2010 case, the Supreme Court held that equating a homemaker who died in a road accident to an economically non-productive person betrayed callous gender bias. In a 2020 judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that the selfless and gratuitous services rendered by a wife or mother within the household cannot be assessed solely in monetary terms, nor can they be equated with those of a hired domestic worker.
Assumption of philanthropic care
Helen Hester and Will Stronge’s 2025 book, Post-work: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How We Get There, examines the economy through time, universal basic income, and automation, with domestic work central to determining labour’s worth and the meaning of leisure. Hester and Stronge also highlight the benefits of a universal basic income in cases of domestic violence, where even a modest cash offering can lessen women’s dependence on abusive husbands.
Hester and Stronge also highlight the benefits of a universal basic income in cases of domestic violence, where even a modest cash offering can lessen women’s dependence on abusive husbands.
This is particularly relevant in India, where several state-level cash transfer schemes for women, though often viewed as electoral strategies, represent an improvement over traditional welfare benefits. Earlier, these benefits were exclusively provided to the head of the household — who is often male — a practice that can further concentrate power in the man’s hands and enable abuse. Such cash transfers to women, however modest they are, can help them rebuild their lives and may provide survivors with the means to escape abusive situations.
However, efforts to recognise and compensate the unpaid domestic labour of women haven’t fared very well. A 2010 bid to register homemakers as a trade union in India was rejected on the grounds that they were neither engaged in a trade nor constituted an industry. Similarly, a 2012 proposal by the Congress-led UPA government to require husbands to pay wives a salary drew backlash for framing marriage as an employer–employee relationship.
The right to leisure
As things stand, society risks losing sight of work’s original purpose. In their 2018 paper, Pfannebecker and Smith argue that free time is an opportunity to redefine life beyond work, yet homemakers rarely experience such freedom. Domestic and care labour does not come with fixed hours or days off, and downtime is often dismissed as unnecessary. Even money spent on social activities is often viewed as a waste of the husband’s income.
Furthermore, automation was expected to free people from mundane chores. Yet, for instance, consider the washing machine: how many women still spend their Sundays doing laundry that is not even their own? Domestic technologies were absorbed into existing patterns of household labour based on established gender roles; therefore, the burden of unpaid labour continues to fall on women.
Leisure, which is often mistaken for idleness, is in reality a time to be one’s authentic self. It is also a time to reclaim one’s cognitive capacities; it is not merely a period of rejuvenation, but a space for the germination of creativity. To be free is not to withhold one’s labour, but to maximise the time available for what one chooses rather than what one is compelled to do.
Until we, as a society, learn to value all forms of work and prioritise leisure for all, it is judgements such as these that sustain the belief that the value of a human being is unconditional, unlike the value attached to their labour.
The false assumption that care work is unconditional, voluntary, and inherent to women demands a revaluation of work and productivity in any post-work future. The Supreme Court’s judgement demonstrates that privileging certain forms of work, devaluing care, and excluding those not performing paid labour from social recognition are a reality we must contend with. Until we, as a society, learn to value all forms of work and prioritise leisure for all, it is judgements such as these that sustain the belief that the value of a human being is unconditional, unlike the value attached to their labour.
About the author(s)
Second year student of Media Studies at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), BRC, Bangalore. A trained Kathak dancer, theatre artist and political nerd.
