Husband can't claim exclusive ownership of joint property even if he paid EMIs: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that a husband cannot claim exclusive ownership over a joint property held with his wife merely on the ground that he provided the purchase money or paid equated monthly instalments (EMIs). .A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidynathan Shankar said such a plea would violate Section 4 of the the Benami Act, which imposes an absolute bar against the enforcement of rights in respect of property held benami. “The provision clearly stipulates that no person claiming to be the real owner of a property standing in another’s name can either institute proceedings or raise a defence asserting such ownership. Thus, the combined effect of the presumption of equal ownership between spouses and the statutory prohibition under Section 4 is that the Appellant [husband] is prevented from contending that the amount from the sale of the joint property belongs to him alone," the Court said. Therefore, the wife would be entitled to a 50 percent share in the proceeds of the property held jointly by the parties, the Court added. .The High Court rendered these findings while dealing with a matrimonial dispute. The couple, married in 1999, had been living separately since 2006. The husband initially sought divorce in 2006 on grounds of cruelty. He later expanded his petition to include desertion. The wife, in turn, sought interim maintenance and claimed her rights in joint property. The property in question, a Mumbai flat purchased jointly, had been sold by the bank, resulting in proceeds of ₹1.09 crore deposited in a joint bank account.A family court ordered the release of the money in favour of the husband, prompting the wife to challenge the order before the High Court. The two sides also challenged a host of other orders passed by the family court. .After considering the case, the High Court held that when a married couple acquires a property jointly in their name, there is a legal presumption that they have jointly contributed towards it irrespective of the fact that one person is not earning.“Normally, when a husband and wife acquire property during the subsistence of marriage, the presumption in law is that such acquisition is made from common family funds and that both spouses have contributed equally, irrespective of whether one of them is earning or not,” the Court stated.Therefore, it held that the wife was entitled to 50 percent share of the amount received from the sale of the property. Notably, the Court upheld the family court order denying divorce to the husband and ordered him to continue paying maintenance of ₹2 lakh per month to the wife. .Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar with advocates Rohit Anil Rathi, Satish Rai, Yashas RK, Somdev Tiwari and Dhruv Dewan appeared for the husband. The wife was represented by advocate Aman Mehta.