Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

WIFE'S CRUCIAL ROLE IN PROPERTY ACQUISITION: BOTH SPOUSES ENTITLED TO EQUAL BENEFITS – KERALA HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment Kerala High Court recognized the invaluable role played by a wife in managing the household and caring for the family, thereby contributing indirectly to the acquisition of jointly owned properties. The judgment sets a precedent by acknowledging the equal entitlement of both spouses to the fruits of their joint efforts in acquiring properties.

The judgment arose from a Second Appeal filed by the children of Late Kannaian Naidu and the 1st defendant, Kamsala @ Banumathi, who were embroiled in a dispute over the division of properties following the plaintiff's demise. The plaintiffs contended that their father's widow, the 1st defendant, should not be excluded from claiming a share in the properties.

The court examined the evidence presented, including correspondences between the parties, marked as Exs. A1 to A11, which highlighted the significant contributions made by the 1st defendant to the family's well-being. These exhibits revealed the immense sacrifices made by the wife as a homemaker, managing household chores, taking care of the children, and supporting her husband while he worked abroad. The court recognized that her efforts directly enabled her husband to focus on his career and accumulate savings.

Highlighting the vital role played by the wife in maintaining the family and allowing the husband to pursue economic activities, the court quoted, "In generality of marriages, the wife bears and rears children and minds the home. She thereby frees her husband for his economic activities. Since it is her performance of her function which enables the husband to perform his, she is in justice, entitled to share in its fruits."

The court further acknowledged the diverse skills exhibited by a wife as a manager, chef, home doctor, and home economist, all contributing to the overall well-being of the family. It emphasized that the contribution of a wife, although indirect, should not be undervalued and recognized the need to protect her interests in jointly acquired properties.

Regarding the specific properties in question, the court held that Item Nos. 1, 2, and 4 were purchased using joint contributions from both the husband and wife. Therefore, both parties were entitled to an equal share in these properties. The court noted that without the 1st defendant's contribution, the husband would have incurred significant expenses in hiring domestic help, which would have reduced the amount of savings available for property acquisition.

However, the court ruled that Item No. 3, acquired in the name of the 1st defendant by pledging her own jewels, belonged solely to her as she used her own resources for the purchase.

In relation to Item No. 5, comprising gold biscuits and sarees, the court determined that although the plaintiff used his earnings to purchase these items as gifts for the 1st defendant, once they were gifted, he could not reclaim ownership. Thus, Item No. 5 remained the exclusive property of the 1st defendant.

This judgment reinforces the principle of recognizing and valuing the contributions made by homemakers and serves as a significant step towards achieving gender equality in property rights. It highlights the need to consider both direct and indirect contributions when determining the distribution of jointly acquired assets between spouses.

The judgment references Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which acknowledges that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after marriage, shall be held by her as a full owner and not as a limited owner.

This decision sets a crucial precedent for future cases involving the division of jointly acquired properties and emphasizes the importance of considering the multifaceted contributions of wives as homemakers. It ensures a fair and equitable distribution of assets between spouses based on their joint efforts and recognizes the value of unpaid domestic work.

Date of Decision: 21st June 2023

Kannaian Naidu (Died) vs .Kamsala Ammal @ Banumathi

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Kannaian-Naidu-Vs-Kamsala-Mad-HC-21-June-2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News