Is wife really doing unpaid work in husband’s home…?

This post is in response with the Indian Homemaker’s article.

Her article:

Should women be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable property?

First let me tell some simple facts

  1. A man and women marries. As per Indian law, marriage is nothing but legal contract.
  2. Man have a job. Women may have a job, may know all the things need to be a home maker. these two are the basic qualities.
  3. Man already have job, so he can earn with or without the help of so-called wife contribution.
  4. Man have his property, women also bring her property in the name of “stridhan”.

The contract begin…

Man earning continues as usually, women helps him to make his house as home. She give birth to babies. and all things are fine.

Now Divorce happen..

Is there any unpaid work by wife?
No. There is no such thing. Because, women is not doing all the work in husband’s home like cooking, cleaning, giving birth to children and going back to her parents home and eating there, sleeping there, leaving children to her husband not claiming anything from those children. That is not happening. She eats whatever husband and children eat, stay in husbands home with all comforts, getting every respect as a mother from children and after divorce wife takes her children with her and father will become visitor. If she fell ill, she will be treated with her husband’s money. Then where is the question of unpaid work?

After divorce, she is not going to work in that home, she is not going cook for the man, she is not going to give birth to another baby for him. Then Why a man need to support her financially?

The only reason for that is may be she is underpaid for her work and she must not sent out without any support to live. These two are the reasons. IMO.

First reason is a doubt for many women from upper middle class to high class. Because they do have many electronic home appliance to make her work easy, and they can even have a maid to do some household work. Middle class women and lower class women really deserve lot of respect here. So, women’s contribution to man’s property must evaluated case by case and award alimony as per that only. Not half of his entire property, because, she can’t contribute to man’s property earned before the marriage and his ancestral property. Only in the property he acquired and she contributed during the marriage.

That’s so simple. If women also working, then also the division is same. Only from the marital property. Not the property earned before marriage or ancestral property.


The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

9 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Do you think the system is biased then? Two people decide to make a family, one earns and owns money, the other who spends her life and time with him, is left dependent. Would women then be better off not marrying and making careers?

  2. I’m curious about your statement where you ask why a man has to support financially a woman who divorces him since she isn’t going to cook and clean for him or bear his children.
    This would make sense if she were permitted and encouraged to have a job while she was married to him and if, while working outside the home she was supported by the husband in taking care of the children and the home. Then she would be on an equal footing and would not need alimony or property. Since social norms turn wives into drudges who have no money other than what their husband gives them, the husband, even if he becomes an ex husband, does have to support her, and his children, however hard it may. Human rights, human rights, sharing of labour. Either this or women will not want to marry as IHM has said. Why should they? Marriage is a very dangerous proposition for women.

  3. With due to respect to women, but there are women at home who are not working and still not do household chores, if they are working then they dont have time, no time for taking care of kids so all cost extra money to have maid, cook etc..

    so we cannot say wife is doing unpaid work .

    Don’t pass such laws which will break the already weak marriage institution…..

  4. @IHM,
    Yes, two people decide to make family. True. Let us think in this angle. Now, you mean to say, they decide to make family. so, the man need to loss half of his property in case divorce happen. But why? Why divorce is gain for a woman and lose for a man (need to lose his 50% property)? Even he has to lose his rights on children. He will just become a visitor, he get only visitation rights. Why there is no joint custody, though children are the part of matrimonial relationship?

    And what about the women’s property? Why everyone seems to be so much interested on man’s property only? That too his ancestral property? and why women property is safe gauarded?

    When it belongings to women exclusive rights are given to women, when it comes to man it must be shared.

    “My(wife) money is my money, your(husband’s) money and your ancestral property is our money”. why?

  5. @Divorced Doodling,
    This would make sense if she were permitted and encouraged to have a job while she was married to him and if, while working outside the home she was supported by the husband in taking care of the children and the home.

    So, you agree to man not sharing anything with wife after divorce, if she has a job of her own and she can sustain with it? isn’t it? That’s what we are asking. (of course, not entirely but a part of what we are asking). That’s we consider as women empowerment and we like it.

    If social norms are not allowing wife to get her share in her property, let govt make a law to eradicate those social norms, just like they made 498A, DV Act to eradicate those social norms allow men to be violent. Put the father of a wife or brothers behind bars, if they deny share in the property. If she get the share, remaining all social norms disappears, isn’t it? She can have her property always, even if husband use it, court ask man to repay that with interest. Problem solved. Why to punish a wrong man (husband)?

    If women will not marry if these laws not passed, men will not marry if these laws passed. You already know what is the situation in westren world. In US and Europe men are afradi to marrying. They date, they love but they don’t marry. Do you and IHM want men to do that?

    Here is an article on why men in america don’t like to marry.

    8 Reasons Straight Men Don’t Want To Get Married

  6. Instead of eyeing their husbands’ ancestral property, why don’t Indian daughters in law make their own homes?

  7. Custody of children is based on the children’s welfare, not on what the parents feel. It’s better for children to be with the parent who is their primary caregiver, mother or father.

  8. @IHM,
    I don’t understand how parting a child from his/her father is welfare of children. A joint custody serves the purpose better than single parent custody. Joint custody is about children right not parent rights.

  9. Joint custody is for child’s good future so she/he don’t need to separate from one parent (mother/father). We all fought about parent rights, but what we need to consider is child’s right to have access to both parents. They must get love of both of them. Parting a child from one parent is not welfare, it’s abuse of children.

All comments will be moderated. No personal attacks and abusive words allowed in comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: