Wife As Homemaker Contributes To Husband's Acquisition Of Assets; Entitled To Equal Share In Properties : Madras High Court

In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court recently held that a wife, who contributed to the acquisition of family assets by performing the household chores, would be entitled to an equal share in the properties, as she had indirectly contributed to its purchase. “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" Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that though there was no legislation at present that recognized the contribution made by the wife, the court could very well recognize the same. The Court added that the law does not prevent a Judge from recognizing the contributions. “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". In the present case, the court was dealing with a dispute between a couple who had got married in 1965. The husband Kannaian Naidu had filed and injunction suit in 2002 contending that his wife (the first respondent) had been trying to usurp the properties that were purchased on his behalf while he was working abroad from the money he earned. He also contended that the wife had sought assistance from another man to alienate the properties and also accused her of leading a wayward life. On the other hand, the wife claimed that she was equally entitled to the property as she had looked after the family while the husband was away thereby giving up her opportunities of employment. She also contended that she had sold her ancestral properties and utilised the money for the husband’s foreign trip and apart from this she had also earned money by tailoring and giving tuitions from which she had acquired some of the suit properties. While the trial court decreed the husband's suit, the first appellate court reversed the decree in certain aspects. After the death of Kannan Naidu, his children filed second appeal before the High Court as his legal heirs. The wife also filed cross objection before the High Court against certain other aspects of the appellate court's judgment.High Court's observations The court agreed with the wife’s submission that she had contributed to the family by taking care of the household and the children. The court noted that the wife, though did not make direct financial contributions, had played a vital role in managing the household chores by looking after the children, cooking, cleaning and managing day-to-day affairs of the family without giving any inconvenience to the plaintiff abroad and moreover, she sacrificed her dreams and spent her entire life towards the family and children. “In generality of marriages, the wife bears and rears children and minds the home. She thereby frees her husband for his economic activities. Since it is her performance of her function which enables the husband to perform his, she is in justice, entitled to share in its fruits.” the court said. The court added that a wife, being a homemaker performed multiple tasks thus making a comfortable environment in the household. The court added that a homemaker performed this job 24 hours of a day without any holiday and that could not be equated with the job of an earning husband, which was only for 8 hours a day. "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 observed. The court added that when the wife, upon marriage, gives up her work and devoted herself for caring her husband and children, she should not be left with nothing. “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 court observed. Property may be purchased either in the...

Wife As Homemaker Contributes To Husband's Acquisition Of Assets; Entitled To Equal Share In Properties : Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Taking care of the children and family not 8 hours job but it is 24 hours job, Court said.

Tags