Delhi High Court: Husband Can’t Claim Exclusive Ownership Of Property In Joint Names Of Spouses Merely On Ground That He Alone Provided Purchase Consideration

The Delhi High Court held that the husband cannot claim exclusive ownership of the property which stands in the joint names of the spouses, merely on the ground that he alone provided the purchase consideration.

The Court held thus in a batch of Appeals arising out of the same matrimonial proceedings and same set of parties.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “In this backdrop, once the property stands in the joint names of the spouses, the husband cannot be permitted to claim exclusive ownership merely on the ground that he alone provided the purchase consideration. Such a plea would contravene Section 4 of the Benami Act, which imposes an absolute bar against the enforcement of rights in respect of property held benami.”

The Bench added 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.

Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar represented the Appellant/husband, while Advocate Aman Mehta represented the Respondent/wife.

Brief Facts

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in 1999 in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, no issue or child was born and the parties were residing together until January 2006. Thereafter, they started living separately. The Respondent-wife came back to reside in the house of the Appellant-husband’s mother. Subsequently, the husband filed a Petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground that the wife committed cruelty in terms of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). Pursuantly, the husband moved an Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking amendment of the Petition by adding desertion as another ground for seeking divorce and the same was allowed. Whereas, the wife filed an Application under Section 24 of HMA, seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings.

In the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), the Court awarded ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month to the Respondent. Subsequently in proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) instituted by wife, the Mahila Court passed an Order directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 2 lakhs per month. Notably, a flat was purchased in joint names of parties in 2005 and the EMIs were paid by the husband. It was sold by the bank as the loan was not cleared. In 2017, the Family Court directed the husband to pay ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 2 lakhs per month to the wife and directed the wife to issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) to the husband, enabling him to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1.09 crores lying with the bank. Hence, Cross Appeals were filed before the High Court, challenging the said decision.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Once this Court reaches the conclusion that a spouse is unable to maintain herself, the determination of the quantum of maintenance rests within the discretion of the Court, to be exercised judiciously, having regard to the status of the parties, their respective needs, and the financial capacity of the other spouse. In the Impugned Order, the learned Family Court, after taking into account the incomes of the parties and other relevant factors, has determined the quantum of maintenance. We find no ground to interfere with this portion of the Impugned Order dated 06.12.2017.”

The Court, therefore, decided to continue with the interim arrangement and directed the Appellant-husband to continue paying Rs. 2,00,000 per month to the Respondent-wife during the pendency of the Divorce Petition.

“… a property jointly purchased at the time of marriage cannot be treated as the stridhan of the woman, as stridhan is confined to those properties which are gifted to her voluntarily by her parents, relatives, husband, or in-laws, either before or after the marriage, and which are intended for her exclusive ownership and enjoyment”, it said.

The Court enunciated that a jointly acquired property, purchased in the name of both spouses, is by its very nature a joint asset and cannot fall within the ambit of stridhan, since it is not a gift exclusively made to the wife but rather an acquisition contributed to and held by both parties.

“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. In the present case, the subject property was purchased in the joint names of the husband and wife, although it is an admitted position that the entire consideration, including the payment of EMIs, was borne solely by the Appellant/Husband”, it further observed.

The Court took note of the fact that the title of the subject property is held in the names of both spouses as joint owners, and even the account in the bank, in which the surplus amount was deposited, was maintained in the joint names of the parties.

“… the combined effect of the presumption of equal ownership between spouses and the statutory prohibition under Section 4 is that the Appellant is prevented from contending that the amount from the sale of the joint property belongs to him alone”, it remarked.

The Court elucidated that Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act) creates an absolute bar against the enforcement of rights in respect of property held benami and it stipulates that no person claiming to be the real owner of such property can institute any suit, claim, or action to enforce rights against the benamidar or any other person in whose name the property stands.

“Therefore, the Respondent is entitled to a 50% share in the proceeds of the property held jointly by the parties, and the money must be released to her”, it also held.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court noted that it was the Appellant who deserted the matrimonial home in Mumbai by leaving for a hotel, abandoning the Respondent and she being financially dependent on him, was unable to sustain herself without his monetary support.

“Due to a lack of such support, she was compelled to return to Noida on 25.03.2006 and started residing in the apartment with his mother, which was in the name of the Appellant at that point of time. Such a return cannot, by any stretch, be construed as desertion, not even constructive desertion, since the Respondent did not abscond or sever ties but, in fact, returned to the residence of the Appellant’s mother on 25.03.2006. This act clearly negates any intention of animus deserendi on her part”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the husband’s Appeal, upheld the Family Court’s Judgment, and directed the husband to continue paying Rs. 2 lakhs per month to the wife.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8356-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, Advocates Rohit Anil Rathi, Satish Rai, Yashas R. K., Somdev Tiwari, and Dhruv Dewan.

Respondent: Advocate Aman Mehta

Click here to read/download the Judgment