A husband cannot assert exclusive ownership over a property jointly acquired and registered in the name of both spouses, solely on the basis that he paid the EMIs, the Delhi High Court has held.
A bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made the observation, recenlty.
“Once the property stands in the joint names of the spouses, the husband cannot be permitted to claim exclusive ownership merely on the ground that he alone provided the purchase consideration,” the court said.
It said the husband’s claim would contravene Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, which bars a person, claiming to be the real owner of the property, from instituting any suit, claim or action to enforce rights against any other person in whose name the property stands.
In her petition before the high court, the wife also claimed that 50 per cent of the surplus amount belonged to her, asserting that it formed part of her stridhan (a woman’s absolute and exclusive property as per Hindu Law) and, therefore, she had exclusive ownership over it.
According to the petition, the couple got married in 1999 and jointly purchased a house in 2005 in Mumbai. However, they began living separately in 2006, and the husband filed for divorce the same year, which is currently pending.
“The provision clearly stipulates that no person claiming to be the real owner of a property standing in another’s name can either institute proceedings or raise a defence asserting such ownership.
Thus, the combined effect of the presumption of equal ownership between spouses and the statutory prohibition under Section 4 is that the Appellant [husband] is prevented from contending that the amount from the sale of the joint property belongs to him alone,” the Court said. Therefore, the wife would be entitled to a 50 per cent share in the proceeds of the property held jointly by the parties, the Court added.
The couple, married in 1999, had been living separately since 2006. The husband initially sought divorce in 2006 on grounds of cruelty. He later expanded his petition to include desertion. The wife, in turn, sought interim maintenance and claimed her rights in joint property.
The property in question, a Mumbai flat purchased jointly, had been sold by the bank, resulting in proceeds of `1.09 crore deposited in a joint bank account.
A family court ordered the release of the money in favour of the husband, prompting the wife to challenge the order before the High Court. The two sides also challenged a host of other orders passed by the family court. After considering the case, the High Court held that when a married couple acquires a property jointly in their name, there is a legal presumption that they have jointly contributed towards it irrespective of the fact that one person is not earning. “Normally, when a husband and wife acquire property during the subsistence of marriage, the presumption in law is that such acquisition is made from common family funds and that both spouses have contributed equally, irrespective of whether one of them is earning or not,” the Court stated.
Therefore, it held that the wife was entitled to 50 per cent share of the amount received from the sale of the property. The High Court upheld the family court order denying divorce to the husband and ordered him to continue paying maintenance of `2 lakh per month to the wife.