Property purchased in homemaker wife’s name is family property: Allahabad HC
Image used for representational purposes.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court declared that property acquired by a husband in his homemaker wife’s name, without her having an independent source of income, is considered family property.
Justice ArunKumar Singh Deshwal noted that it is customary for Hindu husbands to purchase assets in their wives’ names. The judgment arose from a case where a son sought co-ownership rights in a property acquired by his deceased father.
The court, under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasized that in Hindu culture, husbands often invest in properties under their spouses’ names for the family’s benefit. It presumed that unless proven otherwise, such properties are considered family assets, as homemakers typically lack independent income.
The ruling clarified that the presumption holds unless evidence shows the property was purchased using the wife’s earnings.
The case involved Saurabh Gupta, the appellant and son, who filed a civil suit to assert his co-ownership of a property bought by his late father.
The property was registered in the name of the appellant’s mother, who argued that it was a gift from her husband due to her absence of independent income. The appellant sought an injunction to prevent the property’s transfer to a third party, but the trial court rejected the plea.
In its February 15 judgment, the Allahabad High Court overturned the trial court’s decision. It held that when a Hindu husband acquires property in his homemaker wife’s name, primarily from his personal income, it automatically becomes joint family property. The ruling emphasized the necessity to safeguard such property against unauthorized transfers or alterations.
The court’s ruling sets a precedent recognizing the nuanced nature of property acquired by husbands in their wives’ names in Hindu families.
By establishing a presumption in favour of family property, it aims to protect the interests of homemakers and prevent any undue transfer of assets. This decision provides clarity on the legal status of properties acquired under similar circumstances, highlighting the need to safeguard familial rights and interests.
