Can a highly educated or working person still be treated as a homemaker for compensation? The Karnataka High Court says yes.

The Court also made an important clarification often missed in such discussions: “homemaker” is gender-neutral and can include a man, breadwinner or wage earner.

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has held that a person who provides services to family members at home can be treated as a homemaker irrespective of educational qualification or employment status.

The Court made the observation while dealing with a motor accident compensation appeal filed by a biotechnology postgraduate woman who sought enhancement of compensation after suffering injuries in an accident involving a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus.

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha was hearing the matter in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Pampapal.

The claimant had stated that she was working as a lecturer and sought compensation towards loss of earnings caused by the accident. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bengaluru had earlier declined compensation under the head of loss of future earnings.

KSRTC opposed her plea and argued that there was no evidence proving that she was working at the time of the accident. It further argued that because she possessed higher educational qualifications, she could not be treated as a homemaker.

The High Court rejected this argument and observed:

"Every woman who renders services to her family members at home is liable to be regarded as a 'HOMEMAKER' irrespective of the fact that such woman holds higher qualification either it is a Degree or Post Graduation or a Doctorate. In the humble opinion of this Court, even a working woman or a professional can be considered to be a home maker so long as such woman renders services at home taking care and looking after the welfare of the family members,"

The Court clarified that a person need not be illiterate, remain inside the house throughout the day or perform only household work to qualify as a homemaker.

It further observed:

"Any individual who tirelessly strives, showers unconditional love, sacrifices personal comfort at times and ultimately becomes a pillar for happy and stable family is a homemaker,"

Significantly, the High Court went beyond treating homemaking as a role exclusively associated with women. It expressly held that the expression “homemaker” is gender-neutral and may also include a male family member, working person, breadwinner or wage earner who contributes to the family and performs household responsibilities.

The Court said:

"The word 'HOMEMAKER' is gender-neutral. A homemaker thus can be male or female. Also covers working person or bread winner or wage earner. Therefore this Court is of the view that the claimant in this case can well be considered to be a home maker."

This clarification gives the principle wider application. The economic value of unpaid household and family services cannot logically depend only upon the gender of the person performing them.

Since the accident had occurred in 2013 and there was no substantive evidence establishing the claimant's occupation or income, the Court fixed her notional monthly income at ₹8,000.

Considering the nature of her injuries, the Court found that she would have required at least three months of bed rest and would therefore have been unable to render her usual services to the family during that period.

The Court accordingly observed:

"Therefore, the financial loss due to inability of the claimant to perform her duties at her family for those 3 months comes to Rs.24,000/- (8,000 x3). Hence the total sum which the claimant is entitled to receive in addition to the sum that is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,96,800 (1,72,800 + 24,000),"

The Karnataka High Court consequently enhanced the compensation payable to the claimant by ₹1,96,800.

LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED IN THE JUDGMENT

IMPORTANT PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON

CASE DETAILS

COUNSELS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• HOMEMAKER IS NOT A WOMEN-ONLY LABELKarnataka High Court expressly held that a homemaker can be male or female.
• MEN WHO RUN HOMES COUNT TOOA working person, breadwinner or wage earner can also qualify as a homemaker.
• JOB OR DEGREE DOES NOT CANCEL HOME WORKEmployment, professional status or higher education does not prevent homemaker recognition.
• UNPAID FAMILY WORK HAS ECONOMIC VALUEThe Court awarded compensation for the period during which the claimant could not perform services for her family.
• THE LAW’S WORDS ARE CLEAR: GENDER-NEUTRALThe judgment itself says: “The word 'HOMEMAKER' is gender-neutral.”