The High Court of Karnataka has said that any individual, male or female, including working professionals, who “tirelessly strives, showers unconditional love, sacrifices personal comfort at times and ultimately becomes a pillar of a happy and stable family” is a “homemaker.”

To consider a woman a “homemaker”, it is “not necessary to project or establish that she is illiterate, stays at home 24x7, or attends only to household work and nothing more”, the court said.

Observing that “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 a woman holds higher qualifications, be it a degree, postgraduate qualification or doctorate”, the court said.

“In the humble opinion of this court, even a working woman or a professional can be considered a homemaker so long as she renders services at home, taking care of and looking after the welfare of her family members... The word ‘homemaker’ is gender-neutral. A homemaker can be male or female. The term also covers a working person, breadwinner or wage earner,” the court said, while making it clear that the qualities of homemakers narrated by it are illustrative but not exhaustive.

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha made these observations while adjudicating appeals related to a motor vehicle accident compensation case.

The issue before the court was whether the claimant, a woman from West Bengal holding a Master’s degree in Biotechnology and who had briefly worked as a guest lecturer, could be treated as a “homemaker” for the purpose of calculating compensation for the loss of future earnings during a few months she was unable to work due to injuries sustained in the accident.

She had sustained grievous injuries when a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus, in which she and her family were travelling from Bengaluru to Madikeri, met with an accident in October 2013.

The KSRTC argued against recognising the claimant as a “homemaker”, pointing to her higher educational qualifications, and also disputed her claim of having worked as a guest lecturer at a college in West Bengal.

Taking note of the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, including a comminuted fracture of the talus with dislocation of the ankle joint and a fracture of the medial malleolus, Justice Sumalatha noted that the claimant, being a “homemaker”, might not have been able to render any services to her family and could have been on bed rest for at least three months due to the injuries.

The court, therefore, considered the notional financial loss arising from the claimant’s inability to perform her duties to her family during that period and awarded an additional compensation of ₹1.96 lakh with 6% interest from the date of her appeal. This was in addition to the compensation of ₹4.55 lakh with 8% interest awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The court also dismissed the KSRTC’s appeal challenging the award passed by the tribunal in her favour.

Published - August 19, 2026 07:29 pm IST