Husband Can't Claim Exclusive Ownership Of Joint Property Merely On Ground Of Paying EMIs: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a husband cannot claim exclusive ownership of a property jointly held by both the spouses, merely on the ground that he alone paid the EMIs.
“….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. Such a plea would contravene Section 4 of the Benami Act, which imposes an absolute bar against the enforcement of rights in respect of property held benami,” Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said.
The Court said that 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 is prevented from contending that the amount from the sale of the joint property belongs to him alone,” the Court said.
The Bench was dealing with a batch of appeals arising out of matrimonial dispute between a couple. The wife in her appeals sought modification of an interim order passed by the family court and to enhance the ad-interim maintenance awarded to her.
She also challenged the order to the extent that it directed her to give NOC to the husband to enable him to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,09,00,000 lying with the HSBC Bank, Mumbai as surplus against the closure of a loan.
On the other hand, the husband challenged the dismissal of his divorce plea seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and disertion by the wife.
The Bench found it appropriate to continue with the interim arrangement and directed the husband to continue paying Rs.2 lakh per month to the wife during the pendency of the Divorce Petition.
The Court then adjudicated the question whether the wife was entitled to a 50% share in the proceeds of the property held jointly by her and the husband.
It was the wife's case that the proceeds became part of her stridhan under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, she had the exclusive ownership over the same.
On this, the Court observed that a property jointly purchased at the time of marriage cannot be treated as the stridhan of the woman, as stridhan is confined to those properties which are gifted to her voluntarily by her parents, relatives, husband, or in-laws, either before or after the marriage, and which are intended for her exclusive ownership and enjoyment.
“A jointly acquired property, purchased in the name of both spouses, is by its very nature a joint asset and cannot fall within the ambit of stridhan, since it is not a gift exclusively made to the wife but rather an acquisition contributed to and held by both parties,” the Court said.
It added that 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.
“In the present case, the subject property was purchased in the joint names of the husband and wife, although it is an admitted position that the entire consideration, including the payment of EMIs, was borne solely by the Appellant/Husband. It is further a matter of record that the title of the subject property is held in the names of both spouses as joint owners, and even the account in HSBC Bank, in which the surplus amount was deposited, was maintained in the joint names of the parties,” the Court said.
It concluded that the wife was entitled to a 50% share in the proceeds of the property held jointly by both the parties, and that the money must be released to her.
On the dissolution of their marriage, the Court noted that it cannot turn a blind eye to the husband's conduct as far as it pertained to him being allegedly involved in extramarital affairs with two women.
The Court said that although the wife may have committed her own share of alleged wrongdoing, the husband had equally contributed to the widening of the gaps between them.
“The Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the acts attributed to the Respondent constituted cruelty towards him within the definition of cruelty in law. On the contrary, even if it is assumed that certain incidents of cruelty may have occurred during their cohabitation, the Appellant himself has admitted that the parties continued to meet and go out together even after 20.02.2006 [the date of filing of the divorce petition], which clearly indicates that the alleged acts were either condoned or not of such gravity as to cause mental or physical cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage,” the Court said.
It accordingly upheld the family court order dismissing the husband's divorce petition on the ground that he was not able to prove the grounds for cruelty and desertion.
Title: X v. Y & other connected matters