Madras High Court Rules Homemaker Wife Entitled to Equal Share in Properties: The judge stated that the court believes the wife has contributed equally, albeit not directly but indirectly.
The Madras High Court has ruled that a homemaker wife is entitled to an equal share in her husband’s properties, even if they were bought wholly with the man’s earnings, because she contributes equally, albeit indirectly, by caring for the family.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated in a recent order that “…even if any property is purchased in the name of the husband or wife, ultimately, it can be held that both are entitled to an equal share, bearing in mind the properties were purchased by their contributions, one by earning money and the other by serving/looking after the family.”
Kannian Naidu, who later passed away, filed an appeal petition with the High Court against an order of a district court in Chidambaram regarding the retrieval of his properties and jewels from his wife Kamsala Ammal @ Bhanumathi, who was alleged to have had an affair with a man and attempted to steal the property. The offspring of Kannian Naidu supported him in the dispute.
Reflections on the Supreme Court Abortion Decision: A Year of Scorn and Praise
Madras High Court Rules Homemaker Wife Entitled to Equal Share in Properties
The judge stated that the court is of the opinion that the wife has contributed equally, not directly but indirectly, by caring for the home and family for more than a decade and by managing household chores, “thereby allowing the husband to find gainful employment and making his stay abroad more comfortable.”
When husband and wife are treated as ‘two wheels of a family cart,’ the contribution made either by the husband by earning or by the wife by serving and caring for the family and children would be for the family’s welfare, and “both are entitled equally to whatever they earned through their joint effort,” Justice Krishnan Ramasamy said in his ruling.
HC rules that once husband presents wife with gifts, he has no right to claim them back.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy also ruled that since there was no law recognising either the direct or indirect contributions of the wife, the court could recognise the contribution of the wife in facilitating her husband’s property purchase.
“In my opinion, if the acquisition of assets is made by the joint contribution (directly or indirectly) of the spouses for the family’s welfare, both are entitled to an equal share,” said Justice Krishnan. There were five properties at issue in the lawsuit.
Regarding one of the properties, a plot of land acquired by pledging jewels, the judge ruled that the petitioner cannot assert complete ownership, despite having redeemed the jewels with his own earnings. Regarding the jewels bestowed, the judge stated that once he gave them to her, he has no right to demand their return.
