The High Court in Delhi ruled that the husband could not demand the exclusive property of the property acquired and registered together in both spouses, even if he paid the flat monthly installments (emis).
The High Court bench, including Judge Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, issued a decision on September 22.
“As soon as the property stands in the common names of the spouses, the husband cannot be allowed to demand exclusive ownership only because he himself provided the purchase assessment,” the court said.
The Court of Justice explained that in order for a spouse to demand complete ownership, directly in violation of section 4 of the Act on Transactions with Benami Property. This key part legally prohibits any individual who claims to be the actual owner of the assets to initiate an action, entitlement or measures to promote their rights against another person whose name is officially held.
Background
The decision stems from a petition filed by a wife, who calculated that 50 % of the excess amount of the sale of the property belonged to her. She argued that this amount was part of her Stridhan (female absolute and exclusive assets under the Hindu Act) and therefore had exclusive ownership for this share.
The petition described in detail that the couple married in 1999 and then bought the house together in Mumbai in 2005. They started to live tragically only a year later in 2006. The husband filed on divorce of the same year and is currently underway.
Delhi HC supports divorce: forcing a husband to isolation of a relative is cruelty
The High Court in Delhi ruled that his wife was pushing her husband to interrupt his ties with his family members, which represents cruelty, which led to adherence to divorce divorce.
The court confirmed an earlier order that missed the marriage of the stolen couple, specifically noted that repeated public humiliation and verbal abuse of the partner is also born mental cruelty.
“While the mere desire to live independently is not cruelty, persistent and pushing behavior to interrupt the handcuffs (husband) with his family, it certainly is.
The High Court’s judgment subsequently annulled the appeal of a woman against the initial judgment of the family court, which he annulled the marriage due to cruelty.
HC Lavička emphasized that the wife kept claiming that she did not want to live in a common family setting. She actively pushed her husband to distribute family property and live completely separate from his widowed mother and divorced nurses.
(Tagstotranslate) Marriage dispute
