Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

Equal Rights in Marital Home | Husband Entitled to Half Share in Building, Not in Land, Due to Lack of Evidence: Kerala High Court

13 December 2024 4:34 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Kerala High Court partially allowed an appeal modifying a Family Court order regarding ownership rights over marital property. The Court held that the wife, Biji Girish V.J., is the sole owner of the land, while the husband, Girish S. Nair, is entitled to a one-half share only in the residential building constructed on the property. The Court also denied the husband’s plea for an injunction to restrict the wife’s exclusive possession of the house.

1. Husband Failed to Prove Contribution to Land Purchase
The husband claimed equal ownership of both the land and the building, alleging that the funds for purchasing the property were sent by him while working abroad. However, the High Court found no evidence to substantiate this claim. The husband’s bank records (Ext.A2) did not show any withdrawals coinciding with the purchase date of the land (12.12.2001). The Court concluded that the wife’s funds were used to buy the land, affirming her sole ownership.
The Court observed, “In the absence of any evidence linking the husband’s funds to the property purchase, it cannot be concluded that the land was purchased using his contributions.”
2. Joint Contribution to Construction of the House
While the wife argued that she funded the house construction using loans and personal contributions, the husband claimed he had repaid the loans. The Court acknowledged that both parties contributed to the construction. The wife provided evidence of availing loans, and the husband’s bank records showed regular withdrawals during the relevant period, supporting his claim of contribution.
The Court held, “It is probable that the residential building was constructed with contributions from both the husband and the wife. Therefore, the husband is entitled to a one-half share in the building alone, but not the land.”
3. Wife’s Claim of Gold and Cash Partially Proven
The wife claimed that her family had given her ₹1 lakh and 25 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage, which were used for the property purchase and construction. The Court found evidence to support the cash payment, as evidenced by Ext.B4 bank records. However, the claim regarding gold ornaments was rejected, as the wife failed to provide details of where the ornaments were sold. The Court also noted that photographs from the marriage did not corroborate her claim of wearing substantial gold.

Relief Denied: Injunction Against Wife’s Exclusive Possession
The husband sought an injunction to prevent the wife from exclusively possessing the house, arguing for joint access. The Court rejected this plea, citing the strained relationship between the parties. It noted that joint residence was impractical and advised the husband to seek partition instead.
Under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court emphasized that the husband had an alternative remedy:
“The joint residence in the building would not be conducive in the background of the strained relationship between the parties. The husband could very well seek the relief of partition.”

Final Reliefs Granted by the High Court
1.    Land Ownership: The wife’s ownership of the land was upheld, disallowing the husband’s claim over it.
2.    Building Ownership: The husband was granted a one-half share in the residential building constructed on the property.
3.    Injunction Denied: The Court denied the husband’s request for an injunction, preserving his right to seek partition through appropriate legal proceedings.

The Kerala High Court’s judgment balances the financial contributions of both spouses while upholding the principle of fairness in property disputes. By distinguishing ownership rights between the land and the building, the Court clarified that mere claims of contribution must be substantiated with evidence.
The case underscores the importance of proving financial participation in matrimonial property disputes and reaffirms the judiciary's role in ensuring equitable outcomes.


Date of Decision: 10/12/2024
 

Latest Legal News