Case Title: Kannaian Naidu (Died) and Anrs… Appellants/Plaintiffs
Versus
Kamsala Ammal @ Banumathi and Anrs … Respondents/Defendants
And
Kamsala Ammal @ Banumathi … Cross Objector
Verus
Kannaian Naidu (Died) … Respondents
Date of Decision: Reserved On 21.03.2023
Pronounced On 21.06.2023
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Citation: S.A.No.59 of 2016 and Cross Objection No.26 of 2017
Introduction:
The Madras High Court, in a recent judgement, held that when a wife contributes to the acquisition of various assets in a family by performing household chores, then she should be entitled to an equal share in the family properties, as she has also contributed to their purchase.
The court said, “The contribution which wives make towards acquisition of the family assets by performing their domestic chores, thereby releasing their husbands for gainful employment, would be a factor which, this court would specifically take into account while deciding the right in the properties either the title stand in the name of the husband or wife and certainly, the spouse who looks after the home and cares for family for decades, entitled to a share in the property.”
Facts:
The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are 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 started earning a
lot of money. After the plaintiff left for Saudi Arabia, the 1st defendant continued to live in Neyveli children and she was entrusted with the funds of the plaintiff which had swollen to huge proportions. During his visit to India between 1983 and 1994, he brought various articles of value, jewellery and cash. The 1st defendant had no income of her own.
She was only managing and administering the affairs of the plaintiff prudently and operating the accounts and thus was acting in effect as the agent in a fiduciary capacity. 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. He found to his utter shock and dismay that the 1st defendant had led a wayward life and developed an affair with the 2nd defendant.
The 1st defendant is an educated woman but she is crafty and wily. Finding that she can no longer dissipate the funds of the plaintiff, she began to give out with the assistance of the 2nd defendant to alienate the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit in O.S.No.479 of 1995 before the District Munsif Court at Chidambaram for permanent injunction against the defendants.
Issues:
The court found several issues in this case but the main issues in this case are
- Whether the contribution made by the 1st defendant/wife towards acquisition of family assets by performing their domestic chores?
- Whether looking after home and family/caring for the family, taking care of the children etc, thereby releasing her husband for gainful employment would be a factor in determining the rights in acquiring the property?
Legal Analysis:
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy also said that there was no provision regarding the contributions made by a wife, but that court could observe it.
He said, “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.”
The court said that usually in marriages, “The wife bears and rears children and minds the home”. The court said, that the wife frees her husband for conducting economic activities. It further said that since it is her duty which enables the husband to perform his own. “She is in justice, entitled to share in its fruits”, the court added.
The court observed, “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.”
The court also added that the contribution made either by the husband by earning or the wife by serving and looking after the family and children, would be for the welfare of the family and both are entitled equally to whatever they earned by their joint effort.
It said, “The proper presumption is that the beneficial interest belongs to them jointly. The property may be purchased either in the name of husband or wife alone, but nevertheless, it is purchased with the monies saved by their joint efforts.”
Judgement:
The court was hearing a dispute between a couple who got married in 1965. In 2002, the husband Kannaian Naidu had filed an injunction suit stating that while he worked abroad, his wife tried to take over properties bought on his behalf by his money.
Whereas, the wife stated that she was entitled to a right over the properties since she took care of the family while the husband lived abroad and hence had given up on her employment opportunities.
She further said that she sold her ancestral properties to fun her husband’s trips. Adding that she saved money by tailoring and tutoring from which she bought some of the properties mentioned in the suit.
The Court held that Item Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the schedule mentioned properties, that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are entitled to half share each and as far as Item No.3 and 5 of the schedule mentioned property are concerned, the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of
In the result, the Second Appeal and the Cross Objection are partly allowed and accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2015 in A.S.No.1 of 2007 passed by the first appellate Court, is modified to the extent stated above.
Conclusion:
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that while no legislation has been enacted so far in India to recognise the contributions made by a wife either directly or indirectly, the Court could very well recognise such contribution.
“The contribution which wives make towards acquisition of the family assets by performing their domestic chores, thereby releasing their husbands for gainful employment, would be a factor which, this Court would specifically take into account while deciding the right in the properties either the title stand in the name of the husband or wife and certainly, the spouse who looks after the home and cares for family for decades, entitled to a share in the property. If, on marriage, she gives up her paid work in order to devote herself to caring for her husband and children, it is an unwarrantable hardship when in consequence she finds herself in the end with nothing she can call her own,” the High Court said.
Hence, if the acquisition of assets is made by joint contribution, directly or indirectly, of both the spouses for the welfare of the family, both would be entitled to equal share.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR
