Wife gets sole ownership of jointly registered home after father proved to have funded purchase, Kerala High Court rules

The wife sought return of 80 sovereigns of gold, ₹3,35,000 allegedly due from money provided by her father, past maintenance for 13 months, and relief concerning a residential property purchased in the joint names of the spouses.

She alleged that her father had provided the entire consideration for the property for her benefit.

The husband denied the claims and counterclaimed for recovery of ₹3,00,000 allegedly deposited in the wife’s father’s account.

The Family Court rejected the claims for gold, money and maintenance, dismissed the husband’s counterclaim, but awarded the wife ₹15,00,000 as the value of the husband’s half share in the property.

Both parties appealed.

1. Whether the wife proved that she had entrusted 80 sovereigns of gold to the husband and was entitled to recover them

2. Whether the wife was entitled to recover ₹3,35,000 from the husband

3. Whether the husband was entitled to recover ₹3,00,000 from the wife

4. Whether the wife was entitled to past maintenance for 13 months

5. Whether the property was purchased using money provided by the wife’s father

6. If so, what relief the wife was entitled to concerning the property

Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 generally excludes oral evidence between parties to a written instrument where it contradicts, varies, adds to or subtracts from its terms; however, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 permits a Family Court to receive material that may assist it in effectively resolving a dispute, even if it would otherwise be inadmissible, with due regard to reliability, fairness and natural justice.

Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act empowers a Family Court to devise procedure aimed at ascertaining the truth.

Under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, absent a contrary agreement, co-transferees’ interests may correspond to their respective contributions to the consideration.

Order VII Rule 7 CPC permits the court to grant appropriate general or other relief on the pleaded and proved facts.

The Court also considered the amendment objection under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The Court relied on Pramod E.K. v. Louna V.C., 2019 (1) KHC 292, concerning the Family Court’s obligation to observe fundamental evidentiary principles and natural justice.

Vasanthakumary v. Omanakuttan Nair, 2009 (2) KHC 1049, on Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Syamini S. Nair v. Sreekanth R., 2022 (3) KHC 145, on moulding relief under Order VII Rule 7 CPC.

The Court upheld the rejection of the gold claim because the wife’s account of entrustment was not probable in light of her evidence about the limited jewellery she wore shortly before travelling abroad; her testimony was also contradicted by the husband’s evidence.

It found no reliable supporting material for the alleged monetary advance and no proof that the husband’s ₹3,00,000 payment to the wife’s father was made on her behalf; the father was not a party to the proceedings.

The maintenance claim was also rejected because the wife produced no material to support it, including the bank records she had said could show her income.

As to the property, the father’s bank statement showed a ₹25,00,000 credit shortly before the purchase and a corresponding debit on the sale-deed date; the husband did not substantiate his asserted source of funds.

The Court held that the Family Court could consider the evidence concerning the actual consideration under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act notwithstanding Section 92, and found that the father had provided the consideration for the petitioner’s benefit.

Given the original pleadings and the husband’s knowledge of the claim, the Court found no prejudice in moulding the relief to declare the wife’s exclusive title and permit her to obtain vacant possession, rather than limiting her to the ₹15,00,000 monetary award.

The Court declared the wife the exclusive owner of the 2.8 Ares of land and building described in the sale deed and directed the husband to vacate within three months.

The Family Court’s ₹15,00,000 award was modified accordingly; the remainder of its decree, including the rejection of the gold, money and maintenance claims and the husband’s counterclaim, was upheld.