Joint Ownership on Paper – Reality Wife Sole Owner of Property Funded by Father
Marathi new in Maharashtra times and the judgment dated 26.9.2026 of the High Court of Kerala in Mat. Appeal Nos.581 / 2022 84/2022 of Kurudankandi shamseer Vs. Raslin
Section 14 Family Courts Act & Section 92 Evidence Act
The Family Court partly decreed the suit of the wife for return of gold ornaments, money and for maintenance against the husband.
The parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the petition. The respondent married the petitioner on 15.09.2012 in accordance with Mohammadan law. According to the petitioner, when she was taken to the residence of the respondent after the marriage, she was in possession of 85 sovereigns of gold ornaments. However, before she went abroad along with the respondent, he obtained 80 sovereigns of her gold ornaments for the purpose of keeping them safely in a locker. The respondent obtained Rs.5,50,000/- from the father of the petitioner, allegedly for renovating his house. While they were living abroad, the father of the petitioner deposited 5,000 Saudi Riyals (around Rs.85,000/-) in Mat.Appeal Nos.581/2022, 84/2022 CNR : KLHC010552152022 2026:KER:73656 the bank account of the respondent for his needs. Owing to the ill- treatment meted out to her by the respondent, their marital relationship fell apart and that, ultimately, following a mediation, the respondent deposited Rs.3,00,000/- in her father’s bank account. 3. The petitioner further states that, on 09.11.2015, her father provided funds and purchased a residential property having an extent of 7 cents in Manjeri Municipality for the petitioner, in the names of the petitioner and the respondent by availing a loan from the Nilambur Co-operative Urban Bank, Edavanna Branch. 4. The petitioner claimed recovery of 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments or their market value, together with Rs.3,35,000/-, being the amount allegedly given by her father. She also claimed Rs.15,00,000/-, being the value of the half share of the respondent in the immovable property, the other half being already registered in her name. Alleging that the respondent had failed to maintain her for the preceding 13 months, she further claimed past maintenance for the said period at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month.
The property in question was purchased in the joint names of the petitioner and the respondent. o the property purchased in the joint names of the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner contended that, on 09.11.2015, her father raised funds and purchased 2.8 Ares (7 cents) of land, together with the building standing thereon for her, for a consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, though the entire sale consideration was provided by her father, the property was purchased in the joint names of the petitioner and the respondent in the best interests of their marital relationship. PW4, the father of the petitioner, deposed that he raised the funds by availing a loan from the Nilambur Co-operative Urban Bank, Edavanna Mat.Appeal Nos.581/2022, 84/2022 CNR : KLHC010552152022 2026:KER:73656 Branch. Ext.A3 statement of account issued by the Nilambur Co- operative Urban Bank in the name of PW4 on 12.12.2017 shows that, on 09.11.2015, i.e., the date on which the sale deed was executed, an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was debited from his account. Ext.A3 further shows that, on 02.11.2015, an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- had been credited to his account, seemingly as a loan.
It is declared that the petitioner has exclusive ownership over the 2.8 Ares of land and the building standing therein, as described in Ext. B1 sale deed, lying in Re- Survey No.104/50, Block No. 50, Narukara Village, Eranad Taluk. The respondent is further directed to vacate the said property within 3 months.
which is substantially corroborated by Ext.A3, is sufficient to establish that the actual consideration paid for purchasing the property was not the amount shown in Ext.B1 and that the entire sale consideration was paid by the father of the petitioner. The purpose for which the property was purchased, namely, the welfare of his daughter, the petitioner, is beyond dispute,
We hasten to add that, while Section 14 of the Act gives discretion to the Family Court, in a given case, to admit evidence which may otherwise be inadmissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, such discretion should be exercised with due care and caution, having regard to the laudable objects underlying Section
