The Madras High Court said that even though no legislation has so far been enacted to recognize the contribution made by a homemaker, her contributions cannot be disregarded as being worthless. The Court has held that a homemaker is entitled to half of her husband’s property. Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy said that a homemaker performs a round-the-clock job managing a home without taking any breaks from this routine.

A single-judge bench of Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy said, "The property may have been purchased either in the name of the husband or wife; nevertheless, it must be considered to have been purchased with money saved by their joint efforts".

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

The court held that a homemaker would be entitled to an equal share in properties purchased by her husband with his earnings, because he could not have earned the money without the support of his wife in looking after the family. "The property may have been purchased either in the name of the husband or wife; nevertheless, it must be considered to have been purchased with money saved by their joint efforts," he wrote.

He added: "When the husband and wife are treated as two wheels of a family cart, then the contribution made either by the husband by earning or the wife by serving and looking after the family and children, would be for the welfare of the family, and both are entitled equally to whatever they earned by their joint effort. The proper presumption is that the beneficial interest belongs to them jointly."

The judge said, a woman could not be left with nothing to call her own after having devoted herself to taking care of her husband and children. Though no legislation had been enacted so far to recognize the contribution made by a homemaker, the judge said, the courts could very well recognize this contribution and ensure that women get a fair deal when it comes to rewarding their sacrifices.

The verdict was delivered while disposing of a 2016 second appeal preferred by an individual against his estranged wife. The couple had two sons and a daughter, and he worked in India until 1982. He took up a job in the Middle East, and after returning from there, he accused his wife of usurping properties purchased with his earnings.

After he passed away, his children fought the case against their mother, Kamsala Ammal. The elderly woman had sought a share in the properties of her husband. In 2015, a local court rejected Kamsala Ammal’s claim for an equal share in his properties.

The single bench judge of the Madras High Court, however, held that even though the contested properties had been acquired by her husband from his own savings, Kamsala Ammal was entitled to a fifty percent share in his properties and assets.