Comparing the contribution of the parties

Two parties, both the husband and wife may not be directly involved in all sorts of the financial contribution of a family.  In many cases, one is the on the payroll while the other counterpart has to stay home and take care of everything. The homemaker is the one who got deprived of the higher part of the asset in the earlier times.

Their contribution to the asset to the financial side was very poor. But they are the one who took care of the family helping to stick together. Their works were simply overlooked by the court and thus the breadwinner got most part of the asset.

In most of the families, the husband works outside while the wife stays inside and takes care of everything else. She is responsible for the growing up of her child and maintaining all the responsibilities of a family. Her contribution is indirect in the financial area.

The husband who works outside the home does everything that he can for the family. But in this case of property settlement, the court plays it on a level playing field. Thus, both the parties get rightful shares for their contributions.
 

How is it Compared?

There is the contrast between the contribution of both the parties to the asset of a family. The court has to compare it in an unbiased and fair way. The contribution of the salary-earner is mostly in the financial area while the work of the homemaker is on the family side. The homemaker’s contribution is determined by the court on his/her level.

Suppose, Hamish and Martha are a married couple. Hamish has worked outside the home and is the only breadwinner of the family. Martha stays at home and looks after her children. She has no contribution to the financial sector of their family. All the earnings and acquisitions are made by Hamish.

The financial contribution is solely the work of Hamish. While Marha’s contributions are not financial. Now, in case of a split up, the net asset pool of their family is supposedly 3 million dollars.

Now, of the assets, 95% is the contribution of Hamish while there is a negligible contribution of Martha which accounts for 5%. But, Martha was not involved in financial activities because of her family. Her husband works outside and so she had to sacrifice.

Now the court can’t just overlook her contributions as she was confined to her family. Now, the decision of the court would not be like 95% to 5% based on the financial contributions. It will be on a level playing field.

Hence, the decision of the court may be like 40% to the wife and 60% to the husband. It may swing a little more to the husband’s side or a little more on the wife’s side. But this decision is not made simply by the financial contributions. The contribution of both the parties was taken on their respective level.

Importance

• The rights of the homemaker were previously much neglected. This law would help to put an end to it.
• If this law did not persist, then both the parties would be more willing to work outside rather than taking care of their children.
• The importance of making a child a better human being is the sole responsibility of the parents. So this law would help a great deal to serve this purpose.
• The judgment of the court on a level playing field is certainly going to play a great role in maintaining the rights of many people.
• Since most of the homemakers are women, this law would serve a great deal to maintain women’s rights.

Conclusion
This law is going to help a great way in property settlement decisions in the modern times. Now, the contribution of the homemaker will no more be overlooked and neglected. Rather, their hard work and perseverance would be paid off.

The law is a new way to serve equality of every living being. If a wife is confined to home because of taking care of her family, then her right will no more be neglected as she had a low contribution to the financial sector.

The importance of this law is being seen in some Australian families where the decision had swung to the homemaker where they had little contribution to the financial side and got benefitted from it and it was obviously something they deserved for their work to keep their work to maintain the family and the children.

This article provides basic information only and is not a substitute for a professional or legal advice. It is prudent to obtain legal advice from a lawyer.