Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court in its recent judgment held that wife is equally entitled to the property and other movables purchased with the earnings of the husband. The Court said that the contributions made by wives towards the acquisition of the family assets, by performing their domestic chores, is a factor that must be taken into account while deciding the right in the property irrespective of whether it stands in the name of the husband or wife.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, while partly allowing the appeal, observed, “the averments contained in Exhibits A1 to A11 would reveal that the 1st defendant/wife stayed at home by obliging the words of her husband, by which, one way she had lost her income and in other way, merely by staying at home, it cannot be said that the wife was not contributing anything towards the savings of her husband. For taking care of the children and family, it is nothing like 8 hours job, what the husband was doing abroad but it is 24 hours job. The 1st defendant, being a wife, had physically contributed to the family for 24 hours. However, the husband, out of his 8 hours job at abroad, had financially contributed to the family and sent the money out of his savings, from which they had purchased the property. The said savings were done because of the 24 hours efforts put by the 1st defendant/wife for the family, whereby she had made her husband to save money without contributing much towards the house maid etc., and for payment of money towards other jobs.”

It was further observed that though the scheduled properties, item nos. 1 and 2 were purchased by the defendant-wife from the monies sent by the plaintiff, contributions made by the wife cannot be ignored. Reliance was placed in this regard on the letters between the husband and wife, placed as documentary evidences – Ex. A1 to A11.

“To recognise the contribution made by the wife either directly or indirectly, so far, no legislation has been enacted. However, in the present case, this Court can very well recognise the contribution made by the 1st defendant/wife towards the purchase of the properties by her husband either directly or indirectly not only in money or in money's worth, but also the contribution made by looking after the home and taking care of the family. No law prevents the Judges from recognizing the contributions made by a wife facilitating her husband to purchase the property. In my view, if the acquisition of assets is made by joint contribution (directly or indirectly) of both the spouses for the welfare of the family, certainly, both are entitled to equal share”, Court said.

With respect to Item No. 3 of the scheduled properties purchased in the name of defendant 1/wife, Court observed that the same was purchased by the wife by pledging her jewels given as stridhana and merely contributing for its redemption, no right in the favour of the husband can be said to have been create. With respect to Item No. 5 of the scheduled properties, pertaining to the movables, Court held that the same was kept in the bank locker in the name of defendant no. 1 and as such, belongs to her.

“A wife, being a home maker peforms multi tasks, viz., as a Manager with managerial skills-planning, organizing, budgeting, running errands, etc.; as a Chef with cullinary skills-preparing food items, designing menus and managing kitchen inventory; as a Home Doctor with health care skills-taking precautions and giving home-made medicines to the members of the family; as a Home Economist with financial skills- planning home budget, spending and saving, etc. Therefore, by performing these skills, a wife, makes the home as a comfortable environment and her contribution towards the family, and certainly it is not a valueless job, but it is a job doing for 24 hours without holidays, which cannot be less equated with that of the job of an earning husband who works only for 8 hours”, Court further said recognizing contribution of a wife as a home maker, in a marital relationship.

Brief Background

A Second Appeal was moved against the judgment dated 28.09.2015 modifying the earlier judgment dated 15.09.2005, passed in OS No. 28 of 2002.

The plaintiff and the 1st defendant were husband and wife, married in the year 1965 and were living in Neyveli.

The plaintiff was working in Neyveli Lignite Corporation till December, 1982. Since the plaintiff got a job in a Steel Company in Saudi Arabia, he moved there while the 1st defendant continued to live in Neyveli with the children.

While managing the affairs of the plaintiff, she purchased items 1 to 4 properties on behalf of the plaintiff utilizing the funds of the plaintiff. The 1st item in the suit schedule properties was situated at Vadalur and belonged to V.K.Marcose, friend of the plaintiff and the sale deed was executed on 07.08.1983. The 2nd item in the suit schedule properties is a house situate at Chidambaram.

The 1st defendant acting on behalf of the plaintiff, purchased and got a sale deed on 25.04.1984. The entire sale consideration and incidental expenses in all the transactions were concluded by the 1st defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, in view of his absence with the exclusive funds of the plaintiff. The items 3 and 4 were also purchased in the similar fashion.

Case Title: Kannaian Naidu v. Kamsala Ammal | SA No. 59 of 2016