The Madras High Court in its recent judgment recognized the significant contributions of a housewife in managing the household, sacrificing her own aspirations to support her husband’s earning endeavors, and equal participation in acquiring family assets.
The Court held that even though there is no specific legislation in India acknowledging the wife’s contributions directly or indirectly, the Court has the authority to recognize and consider such contributions.
The High Court stated 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. 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 High Court emphasized that the wives’ contributions in acquiring family assets by performing domestic chores and enabling their husbands’ employment should be taken into account when determining property rights, regardless of whether the property is registered in the husband’s or wife’s name.
The Court stated that it would be unfair for a wife who dedicated herself to caring for her husband and children, often giving up her own paid work, to end up with nothing to call her own.
In the case before the Court, involving the appeal filed by Kamsala Ammal, seeking a share in properties held by her deceased husband, the Court examined the properties, which included assets acquired by the husband through his savings, a land parcel bought in the wife’s name, and jewelry and sarees kept in bank lockers held by the wife.
Consequently, if the acquisition of assets is a result of joint contributions made by both spouses for the welfare of the family, both are entitled to an equal share, as highlighted by the Court.
Ammal’s claim to a share in such assets had been contested, initially by her husband, and after he died, by her children.
Initially contested by her husband and later by her children after his death, Ammal’s claim for an equal share in three out of the five properties and assets that had been rejected by a local court in 2015.
The High Court, however, held that though the contested properties had been acquired by the husband out of his own savings, Ammal was entitled to a 50% share. It further held that the contents of the two bank lockers had been purchased by the deceased as gifts for Ammal and therefore, those solely belonged to her.
However, the High Court ruled that Ammal was entitled to a 50% share in the contested properties acquired by her husband, considering her contributions. The Court also affirmed that the contents of the bank lockers were gifts purchased by the deceased husband for Ammal, and thus, belonged solely to her.
The High Court stated that, “In the present case, the properties purchased particularly, Item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule mentioned properties are concerned, when the plaintiff (husband) was in abroad, he used to send monies from time to time to the 1st defendant/wife, who in turn, out of the said monies, purchased the Item Nos.1 and 2. Though the properties were purchased from and out of the monies sent by the plaintiff, it cannot be ignored that the contributions made by the 1st defendant/wife as discussed above, without which, certainly, the plaintiff could not have saved money and acquired those said properties.
These are all the aspects, though proved by documentary evidence, Ex. A1 to Ex. A11 both the Courts below have not dealt with it in a proper perspective and erroneously held that only the plaintiff has the absolute right over Item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedules mentioned properties.”
