Recently, the Madras High Court passed a judgment recognizing the contributions of housewives and their entitlement to share in assets acquired by their husbands. In the ruling on June 21, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that although no specific legislation has been enacted in India to acknowledge a wife's contributions, the court has the authority to recognize and consider them.
The court emphasized that the domestic chores performed by wives, which enable their husbands to pursue employment and accumulate family assets, should be taken into account when deciding property rights. The High Court stated that a spouse who devotes herself to caring for her husband and children, sacrificing her own paid work, should not be left with nothing in the end. Therefore, if assets are acquired through joint contributions, whether direct or indirect, both spouses should be entitled to an equal share.
The judgment came in response to an appeal filed by Kamsala Ammal, who sought a share in properties held under her deceased husband's name. The court examined five properties, including two acquired by the husband from his earnings in Saudi Arabia and a land parcel bought in Ammal's name. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of jewellery and sarees kept in bank lockers belonging to Ammal.
Initially, Ammal's claim for an equal share in three of the properties had been contested by her husband and later by her children after his death. In 2015, a local court rejected Ammal's claim, but the High Court ruled in her favor, granting her a 50 percent share in the contested properties. Furthermore, the court determined that the contents of the bank lockers, purchased by the deceased husband as gifts for Ammal, exclusively belonged to her.
The High Court considered the evidence of the husband sending money to Ammal while he was working abroad and her use of those funds to purchase two properties. It concluded that the contributions made by Ammal were crucial in enabling her husband to save money and acquire those properties. The lower courts had failed to properly assess this evidence and wrongly upheld the husband's absolute right over the properties.
The original plaintiffs were represented by Senior Counsel S Parthasarathy, while Advocate V Anusha appeared for the defendant, the wife. The court appointed M/s T Jayalakshmi as the amicus curiae in the case.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: housewife manage sacrifice dreams husband earn contribution assets Madras High Court legislation recognize factor right properties title marriage paid work unwarrantable hardship joint contribution welfare appeal share properties savings Saudi Arabia land parcel jewellery sarees bank lockers contested local court rejected equal share evidence perspective absolute right plaintiffs sons defendant amicus curiae.
