The Court stated that a homemaker's function is just as significant as that of a family member whose salary serves as a concrete source of support for the household.

The Supreme Court recently noted that a homemaker's function in a family is just as significant as that of a family member who receives "tangible" income [Arvind Kumar Pandey and ors vs Girish Pandey and anr].

Judges Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan's bench noted that it is difficult to measure the contributions made by stay-at-home moms, but they also emphasized how valuable these efforts were.

"It goes without saying that a family's homemaker plays an equally vital role to that of a family member whose income serves as a concrete source of revenue. When considering all of the tasks that a homemaker completes, there is little question that their contribution is priceless and of the highest caliber, according to the Court.

The observation was made by the Court in the course of increasing the amount of compensation that was awarded in relation to the loss of a housewife who was killed in a car accident in 2006.

The Court stated that a homemaker's income cannot be deemed to be less than what would be paid to a worker who is paid on a daily basis for determining such compensation in insurance disputes.

"Her direct and indirect monthly income, in no circumstances, could be less than the wages admissible to a daily wager in the State of Uttarakhand under the Minimum Wages Act," the court stated.

The relatives of the deceased woman had first petitioned a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for ₹16,85,000 in compensation. The MACT declined to accept the claim in the initial round of litigation, citing the vehicle's lack of insurance.

The matter was sent back to the Tribunal by the Uttarakhand High Court, and ₹2,50,000 was given as compensation by the MACT. In April 2017, the High Court sustained this award.

Following that, the woman's relatives appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court pointed out that there were numerous factual and legal mistakes in the High Court's ruling.

"Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, it appears to us that the monthly income of the deceased, at the relevant time, could not be less than Rs. 4,000/- p.m. or so," the court said.

However, the top court ultimately awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹6,00,000 (rupees six lakhs) rather than computing and paying the compensation under several sections. These conditions were used to resolve the appeal.