Kerala High Court Declares Wife Exclusive Owner Of Property Bought In Joint Name With Husband Using Her Father's Money
The Kerala High Court has recently declared a woman exclusive owner of a property bought in joint names with her husband, using her father's money. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 540]A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment while partly allowing an appeal filed by the woman seeking rights over a residential property purchased in her and...
The Kerala High Court has recently declared a woman exclusive owner of a property bought in joint names with her husband, using her father's money. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 540]
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment while partly allowing an appeal filed by the woman seeking rights over a residential property purchased in her and her husband's joint names.
The family Court, while disposing of the petitions had held that since it was proved that the property had been purchased exclusively with the money raised by the woman's father, she was entitled to recover Rs. 15,00,000/- from the respondent-husband.
The counsel for the husband contended that the sale deed recorded only Rs. 7,58,000/- and hence the trial Court was not justified in awarding 15 lakh as the value of the half share of the property. Relying on Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was argued that the a finding regarding a consideration different from that recorded in the sale deed was barred by Section 92, which generally excludes oral or other evidence between parties to an instrument when it is sought to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its terms.
The High Court noted that while the quantum of consideration stated in a document could attract the evidentiary restriction under Section 92, the Family Courts Act contains a specific provision dealing with admissibility of evidence.
The Court noted that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that the Family Court receive in evidence any “report, statement, documents, information or matter”, whether or not the same would otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if the court considers that such evidence would assist it in dealing effectually with the dispute.
The Bench held that, in view of this specific enabling provision, a Family Court can consider evidence even where Section 92 of the Evidence Act would otherwise operate as a bar.
“Once the Family Court arrives at such conclusion, it can rely on any such evidence dehors Section 92, in the light of Section 14 of the Act, which gives an overriding effect to the provisions relating to relevancy and admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” Court noted.
However, the Court cautioned that this does not give Family Courts an unrestricted license to disregard ordinary evidentiary safeguards.
It held that the discretion under Section 14 must be exercised with due care and caution, keeping in mind the objectives underlying Section 92.
“The reliability and probative value of such materials are also to be tested in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case.” Court added.
The Court reiterated the position in Pramod E.K v Louna V.C [2019(1) KHC 292], where the Court has held that Family Courts remain bound by fundamental rules of evidence founded on logic, fairness and expediency, as well as principles of natural justice, notwithstanding the wider evidentiary power under Section 14.
The Court thus found that the wife's oral evidence and that of her father was substantially corroborated by a bank statement showing a Rs. 25 lakh debit from the father's account on the date of execution of the sale deed. The husband, meanwhile, failed to produce evidence establishing that he had contributed to the purchase price.
The husband claimed that the money had been given to him by his brother-in-law, who had worked with him abroad. However, the brother-in-law was not examined, nor were documents produced to establish the source of the funds or how the money had been brought into India.
The Court therefore accepted the wife's case that the property had been purchased with funds provided by her father for her benefit, although the sale deed had been executed in the joint names of the spouses.
The Bench also considered the legal effect of the fact that the property stood jointly in the names of the spouses.
Distinguishing an earlier decision, Shereefa Shanavaz v. Shanavaz [2026 (4) KLT 597], the Court noted that the intention behind the transaction must be gathered from the surrounding circumstances, including the relationship between the parties, their conduct, the source of the purchase money, possession and custody of title documents.
The Court further referred to Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, under which, in the absence of a contrary contract, persons in whose favour a property is transferred are entitled to interests proportionate to the consideration advanced by them. The Court noted that in the present case, the entire consideration had been provided by the wife's father for her benefit.
The Court thus went beyond the Family Court's award of ₹15 lakh representing the husband's purported half share. It held that the pleadings and evidence essentially raised a claim to exclusive ownership of the property.
Relying on Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the special procedural character of family litigation, the Court held that it could mould the relief to do complete justice, even though the wife had not originally sought a declaration of exclusive title in precisely that form.
The Court observed that Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act also permits a Family Court to adopt its own procedure with a view to arriving at the truth in disputes between the parties.
“It is, therefore, concluded that the decree passed by the Family Court is liable to be modified by declaring the exclusive right of the petitioner over the said property and permitting her to obtain vacant possession thereof from the respondent.” the Court ordered.
The Court thus declared the wife the exclusive owner of the 2.8 Ares of land and building and directed the husband to vacate the property within three months. The ₹15 lakh monetary award granted by the Family Court was modified accordingly. The husband's appeal was dismissed, while the wife's appeal was allowed in part.
Counsel for Appellant: P. Samsudin, Milan Rachel Mathew, Lira A.B
Counsel for Respondent: R. Rajesh Kormath