CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that a homemaker wife is entitled to equal share in husband’s properties even if they are purchased entirely from the man’s earnings as the woman is contributing equally, though not directly, by taking care of the family.
“... even if any property is purchased in the name of the husband or wife, ultimately, it can be held that both are entitled to equal share keeping in mind the properties were purchased by their contributions, one by earning money and another by serving/looking after the family,” Justice Krishnan Ramasamy said in a recent order.
An appeal petition in the HC was filed by Kannian Naidu, who later died, against an order of a district court in Chidambaram over retrieval of his properties and jewels from his wife Kamsala Ammal @ Bhanumathi who was alleged to have developed an affair with a man and tried to take away the properties. Kannian Naidu’s children sided with him in the dispute.
The judge said the court is of the considered view that the wife has also contributed equally, not directly but indirectly, by way of looking after the home and taking care of the family for more than a decade and by managing household chores, “thereby releasing the husband for gainful employment and made his stay comfortable abroad.”
When husband and wife are treated as ‘two wheels of a family cart’, then the contribution made either by the husband by earning or by 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”, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy said in his ruling.
Once husband presents wife with gifts, he is not entitled to claim them back, says HC
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy also held that since there was no law to recognise the contributions made by the wife either directly or indirectly, the court can recognise the contribution of the wife in facilitating purchase of property by her husband.
“In my view, if the acquisition of assets is made by joint contribution (directly or indirectly) of the spouses for the welfare of the family, certainly, both are entitled to equal share,” said Justice Krishnan. Five properties were subject matter of dispute in the case.
Regarding one of the properties, a piece of land bought by pledging jewels, the judge held the petitioner cannot claim full rights to it, though he had redeemed the jewels by his own earnings. Regarding the jewels gifted, the judge said once he gave it to her, he is not entitled to claim it back.