Kerala High Court (Photo| A Sanesh/EPS)
Kerala High Court (Photo| A Sanesh/EPS)

Man may be cheater but wife has no right over joint property: Kerala HC

The court issued the order on a petition filed by a man pertaining to the dispute over the properties bought in the name of him and his wife.

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has observed that when a man buys a property as part of his real estate business even if he includes his wife as a name lender in the title document, it cannot be said that the purchase was for her benefit. The court added that the intention of the parties is a key factor in determining the nature of the transaction, which could be gathered from the relationship between parties, their conduct before and after the transaction, source of money for the purchase, possession of the property and title documents and repayment of the loan.

The court issued the order on a petition filed by a man pertaining to the dispute over the properties bought in the name of him and his wife. According to him, he bought those for his own benefit and not for his wife’s. Even if some properties are in the name of his wife, she has no right, title or interest over any of those assets. She was only a name lender in the respective documents. He also sought to declare that he was the beneficial owner and the wife was only a name lender/benamidar in the property transactions.

The court said this is a case where a husband, after begetting a child in his employee, took that child to his wife, who is not able to conceive, as if the child was abandoned by an unwed nurse and offered for adoption. The innocent wife nurtured that child believing the child to be an adopted one, giving him the love and warmth of a mother. After about five years, she realised that her husband was the biological father of the child conceived during his illicit relationship with the employee. Hurt, she returned to her paternal home.

The court termed the husband’s action “brood parasitism which is a breeding strategy adopted by some birds, insects and fishes to raise their young ones”. However, it ruled that the wife did not have any solid evidence to show that she had spent money for buying the properties. And the court set aside the family court’s order that the wife is the co-owner of the properties.

Purpose, a vital factor
The intention of the parties is a key factor in determining the nature of the transaction, which could be gathered from the relationship between parties, their conduct before and after the transaction

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com