"Contributes To Acquisition Of Family Assets By Performing Household Chores" - Madras HC Holds Wife Entitled To Equal Share In Properties

A Madras High Court Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has held that a wife is entitled to an equal share in the property bought by her husband and said the many roles played by her cannot be less equated with the 8-hour job of the husband.

In that context, it was said that "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."

In furtherance, the Court observed that, "the common intention of the couple, viz., the plaintiff/husband and 1st defendant/wife was to co-ordinate each other and to strive hard for the benefit of family and even if any properties purchased in the name of husband or wife alone, ultimately, it can be held that both are entitled to equal share as far as in the present facts of the case keeping in mind the earning of the husband since the same were purchased by both of their contributions, one by earning money and another by serving/looking after the family as stated above. Without contribution of the 1st defendant/wife to the family, the plaintiff would have engaged maid servants, that also for three shifts at 8 hours each per day and might have spent huge money from his earnings for maid servants in which case, the plaintiff would have certainly saved less money, which would not have been sufficient to purchase the properties or not saved anything."

Senior Counsel S Parthasarathy, among others, appeared for the appellants. Counsel V Anusha, Counsel Nithianandam, Counsel K Chandrasekaran, and Counsel SR Sumathy appeared for the respondents. 

In this case, the plaintiff-husband filed a lawsuit in 2002, claiming that his wife (first defendant) was trying to take control of properties that were purchased with his earnings while he was working abroad. He accused his wife of involving another man in selling the properties and of leading a questionable lifestyle.

However, the wife argued that she was entitled to the property as she had taken care of the family while the husband was away, giving up her own job opportunities. She also stated that she had sold her ancestral properties to fund her husband's foreign trip and had earned money through tailoring and tutoring, which she used to acquire some of the properties in question. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the husband, but the first appellate court partially overturned the decision. After the plaintiff's death, his children, as his legal heirs, filed a second appeal before the High Court, while the wife also filed a cross objection against certain aspects of the Appellate Court's judgment.

The Court noted that "In fact, the 1st defendant being a home maker, though she did not make any direct financial contribution, she 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 light of the same, it questioned whether the wife could be excluded in claiming any share over the properties in the prevailing circumstances.

In that context, the Court observed that the contribution which wives make towards the acquisition of the family assets by performing their domestic chores, thereby releasing their husbands for gainful employment, should be accounted for while deciding the right in the properties. In a similar vein, it was further observed that "When the husband and wife are treated as two wheels of a family cart, then the contribution made either by the husband by earning or the wife by serving and looking after the family and children, would be for the welfare of the family and both are entitled equally to whatever they earned by their joint effort. The proper presumption is that the beneficial interest belongs to them jointly. The property may be purchased either in the name of husband or wife alone, but nevertheless, it is purchased with the monies saved by their joint efforts."

Subsequently, the Court concluded that the wife had also contributed equally, though not directly but indirectly, by way of looking after the home and taking care of the family for more than a decade and managing the household chores, thereby releasing the husband for gainful employment and made his stay comfortable in abroad and also to reduce the expenses and save the money for future benefit of the family including for purchasing of the assets. 

Cause Title: Kannaian Naidu & Ors. vs Kamsala Ammal @ Banumathi & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment