He claimed ownership of the property and accused her of having an extramarital affair. Following his death, his children were charged in the case.
Digital Desk: The Madras High Court
found that a wife is entitled to an equal stake in the property purchased by
her husband and that the multiple responsibilities she does cannot be equated
with the husband's 8-hour employment.
The ruling was issued recently by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy in
connection with a property dispute between a couple, with the initial appellant
being deceased.
He claimed ownership of
the property and accused her of having an extramarital affair. Following his
death, his children were charged in the case.
The
judge observed that the defendant woman, as a homemaker, played an important
role in managing domestic responsibilities such as child care, cooking,
cleaning, and managing day-to-day family matters without causing any trouble to
the litigant, who had gone overseas for work.
"Additionally,
she sacrificed her dreams and dedicated her entire life to her family and
children," the court said.
"In
most marriages, the wife bears and rears children, as well as manages the
household." As a result, her husband has more time for business. "She
is entitled to share in the fruits of her function because it is her
performance of her function that allows the husband to perform his," the
judge pointed out.
The
judge claimed that a wife who stays at home is a manager, chef, "home
doctor," and "home economist" with knowledge of finances.
Since
a wife performs these tasks, she contributes to the family and ensures that the
home is a comfortable place to live. While this is a valuable job that she
performs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it cannot be compared to a husband
who earns a living and works only eight hours.
The
contribution made by the husband through earning or the wife through serving
and caring for the family and children is for the benefit of the family when
the husband and wife are viewed as two wheels on a family cart, the court
added. Both are entitled equally to whatever they earn through their joint
effort.
"That they jointly
own the beneficial interest is the proper presumption." The judge said,
"The property may be bought solely in the name of the husband or wife, but
it is bought with money saved by their joint efforts."The court ruled that
both parties in this case should receive an equal portion of particular
immovable property because without the first defendant/wife, the litigant (who
is now deceased) would not have travelled abroad and made all the money.
Continue Reading
