Jahanvi Agarwal
Recently, the Madras High Court passed a major decision that a wife who contributed to the acquisition of family assets by performing household duties would be entitled to an equal part in the properties since she had indirectly contributed to their purchase. The court held that caring for children and family members is 24-hour work, not an 8-hour job.
The court stated that:
“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”
The bench consisted of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, who was of the view that as there was no statute in place at the time that recognizes the contribution made by the wife either directly or indirectly. However, the court can recognize the contribution of the wife in facilitating the purchase of the property of the husband.
“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 instant case, the Hon’ble court was dealing with a dispute between a couple who got married in 1965. Kannaian Naidu, the husband, filed an injunction claim in 2002, alleging that his wife (the first respondent) was attempting to usurp the properties acquired on his behalf with money earned while he was working overseas. 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.
The wife, on the other hand, contended that she was equally entitled to the property because she had cared for the family while the husband was abroad, neglecting her career prospects. She also claimed that she had sold her ancestral properties and used the proceeds to fund her husband’s foreign trips and that she had made money by tailoring and providing tuition, from which she had purchased some of the suit properties.
While the trial court granted the husband’s complaint, the first appeal court overturned it in several ways. Following Kannan Naidu’s death, his children filed a second appeal with the High Court as his legal heirs. The wife also filed a cross objection before the High Court against several other portions of the appellate court’s decision.
The High Court held that:
“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 went on to say that a woman, as a housewife, did many chores, creating a comfortable environment in the home. The court said that a housewife did this job 24 hours a day, seven days a week and that it could not be compared to the duty of an earning spouse, which was just 8 hours a day.
The court also stated that when a wife marries and gives up her job to care for her husband and children, she should not be left with nothing. Not only this but the court was of the opinion that a wife multitasks:
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 Name: Kannaian Naidu and Others v. Kamsala Ammal and Others
Diary Number: 59/2016
Bench: MR. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy