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

“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 name of husband or wife alone, but earned by their joint efforts

The judgment also observed :

"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"

Thus, finding that the wife had also contributed indirectly for acquiring the properties, the court held that she was entitled to a share in the same. The Court was of the considered view that the 1st defendant/wife has 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.

In the instant case, the properties were purchased in the name of the wife and the husband claimed rights over those properties by claiming that he had in fact provided the funds for purchasing those properties. His contention was that since he was abroad, the properties could not be registered in his name and hence the properties were purchased in the wife's name on his behalf by using his funds. The lower courts accepted the husband's claim and held him to be the real owner of the properties.This finding was reversed by the High Court by holding that both the husband and wife were equally entitled to the properties.

"Though the properties purchased in the name of the 1st defendant, she alone cannot claim exclusive right over the properties merely because the title deed is in her name since the documentary evidence would establish that the 1st defendant/wife purchased the properties out of the direct financial contribution of the plaintiff also. Likewise, the plaintiff also cannot claim absolute right merely on the basis that he had sent the money to purchase the properties and the 1st defendant is only holding then property in trust as ostensible title over the properties in fiduciary capacity...this Court arrives at the conclusion that since Item Nos.1 and 2 have been purchased from and out joint contribution of spouses, viz., the plaintiff by earning and the 1st defendant indirectly by way of her invaluable services as home maker, whereby reducing the expenses of her husband which lead her husband to save more and this way the wife had contributed indirectly to purchase the property item Nos.1 and 2, which aspect cannot be ignored as the same could be decided based"

The Court held that the wife was entitled to half the share in the assets acquired by the husband in his own name.

Wife performs mutlitasks

"A wife, being a home maker performs multi tasks, viz., as a Manager with managerial skills-planning, organizing, budgeting, running errands, etc.; as a Chef with cullinary skills-preparing food items, designing menus and managing kitchen inventory; as a Home Doctor with health care skills-taking precautions and giving home made medicines to the members of the family; as a Home Economist with financial skills- planning home budget, spending and saving, etc. Therefore, by performing these skills, a wife, makes the home as a comfortable environment and her contribution towards the family, and certainly it is not a valueless job, but it is a job doing for 24 hours without holidays, which cannot be less equated with that of the job of an earning husband who works only for 8 hours"

Case Title: Kannaian Naidu and others v Kamsala Ammal and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 172

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.S.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel for Mr.K.S.Navin Balaji

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.V.Anusha, Mr.Nithianandam, Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, Ms.S.R.Sumathy

Amicus Curiae: M/s. T.Jayalakshmi