New Delhi, Sept 22 — The Delhi High Court has held that a husband cannot claim exclusive ownership of a property purchased jointly with his wife merely because he paid the equated monthly instalments (EMIs).
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while ruling on a matrimonial property dispute on September 22, said the fact that one spouse contributed more or even entirely to the purchase consideration does not negate the legal implications of joint ownership when the property is registered in both names.
“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,” the court observed in its order. The bench further noted that such a claim would be contrary to Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, which bars a person from asserting ownership rights against the individual in whose name the property is held.
The case stemmed from a petition filed by a woman who asserted that 50 per cent of the surplus amount from the sale of their jointly owned house belonged to her. She argued that this amount formed part of her stridhan — a woman’s absolute and exclusive property under Hindu law — thereby giving her independent ownership rights.
According to the petition, the couple married in 1999 and purchased a residential property in Mumbai in 2005, registering it jointly. However, within a year of the purchase, their relationship broke down and they began living separately in 2006. That same year, the husband also filed for divorce, which remains pending.
The High Court said the husband’s argument that payment of EMIs entitled him to sole ownership was legally untenable. “The claim of the husband amounts to asserting that the wife was only a name-lender, which is barred by the Benami Act,” the bench noted, making clear that registration in joint names creates enforceable ownership rights for both parties, regardless of individual financial contribution.
Legal experts said the ruling reaffirms the principle that joint registration of property by spouses creates joint ownership that cannot be undone by unilateral claims of financial contribution. It also underscores the judiciary’s view that women cannot be stripped of their legal share in matrimonial property merely because they did not pay towards the loan.
The High Court’s interpretation is expected to influence similar cases where disputes arise between spouses over jointly registered assets during separation or divorce proceedings.
