Delhi High Court's Big Verdict: Husband Can't Claim Sole Ownership Of Joint Property Even If He Alone Paid Emis

(MENAFN- Live Mint) The Delhi High Court has ruled that a husband cannot claim sole ownership of a property acquired and registered jointly in both spouses' names, even if he alone paid the equated monthly instalments (EMIs).

A High Court bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the ruling on September 22.

“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 said.

The court clarified that for the husband to claim complete ownership would directly contravene Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. This key section legally bars any individual who claims to be the true owner of a property from initiating a suit, claim, or action to enforce their rights against another person in whose name the property is officially held.

Background to the Case

The ruling stems from a petition filed by a wife, who counterclaimed that 50 per cent of the surplus amount from the property sale belonged to her. She asserted that this sum was a component of her Stridhan (a woman's absolute and exclusive property as per Hindu Law) and, consequently, she held exclusive ownership over that share.

The petition detailed that the couple were married in 1999 and subsequently purchased a house together in Mumbai in 2005. Tragically, they began living separately only a year later, in 2006. The husband filed for divorce that same year, and those proceedings are currently ongoing.

Delhi HC upholds divorce: Forcing husband to isolate kin is cruelty

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a wife pressuring her husband to sever ties with his family members constitutes cruelty, a decision that led to the upholding of a divorce order.

The court affirmed an earlier order dissolving the marriage of an estranged couple, specifically noting that repeated public humiliation and verbal abuse of a partner also amounts to mental cruelty.

“While the mere desire to live separately is not cruelty, persistent and pressurising conduct to sever the respondent's (husband) bonds with his family certainly is. The Supreme Court held that a wife's persistent effort to alienate a husband from his parents constitutes mental cruelty,” a bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar's September 16 verdict said.

The High Court's ruling consequently quashed the woman's appeal against the initial family court judgment, which had dissolved the marriage on the grounds of cruelty.

The HC bench highlighted that the wife consistently asserted she did not wish to live in a joint family setup. She had actively pressured her husband to partition the family property and live entirely separately from his widowed mother and divorced sister.

MENAFN01102025007365015876ID1110135223