MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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