A court in India has expanded the rights of women homemakers over their husband's property, which has been hailed as a positive sign by women's rights advocates, after the Madras high court passed a verdict in a domestic dispute case that allowed a housewife equal share in her husband's property.
It is said to be the first time an Indian court has formally recognised the contribution of a housewife to the husband's income. They, however, point out that the verdict is not binding on other states unless the country's Supreme Court rules along similar lines in future.
It involved a couple from Tamil Nadu who'd married in 1965. After 1982, the husband moved to Saudi Arabia for a job. His wife, who stayed back in India and had no income of her own, bought several assets - 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. He also claimed 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.
The dispute covered five assets. Four were properties bought in the woman's name, including a house and land. The fifth tranche comprised gold bars, jewellery and sarees gifted by the man to his wife.
The court added that when a woman gave up her job after marriage, it often led to an unwarrantable hardship where she did not own any assets. While there was no law that directly or indirectly recognised a housewife's contribution, the court said that there was no law barring judges from recognising it.
The court used this reasoning to rule that three of the five assets equally belonged to the husband and wife. Regarding the fourth asset, the court held that the wife was the sole owner since she bought it by pledging the jewellery she got at the time of her marriage, which was her sole property under Hindu law.
As for the fifth tranche - the gifts - the husband had also claimed ownership of them saying that he had not bought the same on his own volition but only… to fulfil his wife's wishes". The court rejected this argument. Women's rights lawyer Flavia Agnes said that it was a positive judgement, because it recognises women's domestic labour.
Indian judges had earlier put a notional value to a housewife's income to award compensation to their families in motor accident claims, it was said. In some cases, amounts ranging between 5,000 rupees ($61; £47.9) and 9,000 rupees ($109.7; £86.2) a month had been fixed for a housewife's work.
"But it translated into numbers that were not large enough to become meaningful," one housewife says. "This is, for the first time, a meaningful recognition of the homemaker's right." So, the hope is that the judgement could have a positive impact in future.
"In India, we have a 'lifestyle rule' in divorce cases," she says. "As long as the maintenance and alimony amount take care of the lifestyle of a woman, then all other claims become moot." The statutes also do not specifically articulate the wife's ownership in the husband's property by recognising her domestic labour which allows him to earn money to buy the asset.
"The important thing is the court clearly articulates the meaningful value of a housewife's labour."
