Can Wife Be Denied Half Share In Jointly Purchased Property Because Husband Paid Entire Consideration? Kerala High Court Answers

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. allowed a wife's appeal challenging the Family Court's order declaring her husband as the absolute owner of the property purchased in their joint names.

The couple got married in 2011 as per Muslim law. According to the husband/1^st respondent, the wife/appellant belonged to a poor family and he was meeting all expenses during their married life. He claimed to be driver, who was employed abroad.

The husband contended that in 2017, he purchased a property in the joint names of himself and his wife but the entire sale price was paid by him. His case was that the wife's name was included in the sale deed as merely a 'trustee' and that she had not contributed any money.

He also alleged that his wife was living in adultery with the 2^nd respondent, that she had deserted him and their matrimonial tie has ended. While so, he approached the wife requesting to re-convey the property to him but she refused. At this juncture, he approached the Family Court seeking declaration of title and recovering of possession of the property.

The wife made detailed objections before the Family Court. She denied that she was from a poor family and that the husband was meeting all the expenses of their family. She further contended that she also made financial contributions for the purchase of the property by giving the cash and gold given to her by her family.

Both parties led evidence before the Family Court but it found that the husband proved that he paid the entire price while the wife failed to prove that she also contributed substantially. The Family Court declared husband as absolute owner and held that he was entitled to recover possession of the property from his wife. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court.

The wife/appellant contended that since the husband did not adduce evidence to show that she was merely a trustee, the presumption of title over half of the property is in her favour. The husband relied on various precedents in which husband was declared as real owner of property when he proved that he contributed the full amount and the wife did not prove she contributed.

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that merely because the wife was not able to prove that she also financially contributed, the Family Court could not have ignored the presumption that arose in her favour when the sale deed executed shows both their names.

It further found that the husband still had the obligation to prove that the wife was his benami/trustee even though spouses are given exception under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

“In the absence of any clause in the sale deed that suggests that the appellant/wife's name was shown in the sale deed as a trustee for the husband, or any other evidence adduced to establish the existence of a trust relationship, the vesting of the title over one half of the property in the appellant/wife has to be seen as absolute. Although the money for purchase of the property came entirely from the 1st respondent/husband, that by itself would not be sufficient to prove that the appellant/wife was holding her share of the property on trust for the husband. Payment of the entire purchase price by the husband may be one of the relevant considerations, but cannot be seen as determinative of the benami character of the transaction between the spouses,” the Court added.

The Court further observed that the decisions relied on the husband would not apply in the present case since in those cases, there was evidence to show that the property was held on trust or that the property was fraudulently purchased in the name of one spouse.

It also held that merely because the marriage ended, the wife cannot be divested of the property especially when the husband had knowingly showed the wife as co-owner for various reasons.

“Other facts such as that the 1st respondent/husband had entered into the purchase transaction in relation to the property with open eyes and with full knowledge of, and consent to, the appellant/wife being shown as a co-owner of the property, the possibility that it was in recognition of the wife's contributions to the matrimonial relationship that she was made a co-owner of the property and that the 1st respondent/husband had done nothing to alter the said position through seeking a correction of the sale deed or approaching a civil court for a declaration of title for many years after the purchase of the property must, in the absence of any agreement, either express or implied to the contrary, lead to the presumption that the intention of the parties was indeed to confer ownership over one half of the property on the appellant/wife. Merely because there has been a rupture of the matrimonial relationship between the parties at a later point in time, it does not follow that the appellant/wife must stand divested of her ownership over half share in the property solely because at the time of purchase of the property, the 1st respondent/husband had paid the entire purchase consideration.”

The Court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the Family Court's decision. It further declared the wife as absolute owner of half of the property.

Case No: Mat. Appeal No. 391/2025

Case Title: A v. B. and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 391

Counsel for the appellant: Balram S.A., M.S.Ajith, Hrithwik D. Namboothiri, Swathy S.A, Pooja P.O.

Counsel for the respondents: Alias M. Cherian, Gigi Peter, Bristo S. Pariyaram, Minnu Darwin, Reshma Rajesh

Click to Read/Download Judgment