Homemaker's contribution alone can't confer ownership in husband's property: Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a wife's role as a homemaker, without proof of direct financial contribution, cannot by itself confer ownership rights in a property purchased in the husband’s name.

However, it must be clarified that the mere residence of the wife in the matrimonial home, cannot, by itself, vest her with an indefeasible right of ownership over properties standing in the husband's name.

"A legitimate and enforceable claim to the husband's property must rest on proof of a meaningful and substantive contribution. In the absence of such proof, ownership remains with the titleholder, subject of course to statutory or equitable exceptions," the court said.

The court also said that it believes that the time has come that such contributions be taken to their meaningful conclusion as these contributions remain hidden and downplayed.

However, the court further took note of the fact that currently, there exists no statutory basis accounting for the recognition of such contributions of homemakers for the purpose of making any determination on the ownership rights or even to quantify the value of these contributions.

According to the court, perhaps, in time, the legislature may take measures to ensure that a homemaker's contributions are reflected meaningfully and extend the same for a determination of their rights in respect of claims for ownership based on these contributions.

"But till then, the court cannot accede to the appellant's plea for an adjudication on the ownership rights in respect of immoveable property, purely on the strength of the contributions by a homemaker in taking care of the household and the family and children," it said.

The ruling came in an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, where the wife had challenged a July 16, 2025 order of the family court, Rohini, dismissing her civil suit for declaration and injunctions over a Gurgaon flat registered in her husband's name.

The court noted that the appellant admitted she had not made any financial contribution towards the purchase of the flat. Her reliance on the Madras High Court ruling in Kannaian Naidu vs Kamsala Ammal (2023) was rejected, with the bench clarifying that in Kannaian Naidu the wife's fiduciary involvement in the property purchase was clearly established - unlike in the present case, where the pleadings contained only "bald assertions".

The court referred to earlier judgments to note that while statutory protection ensures that a woman in a domestic relationship cannot be arbitrarily evicted or excluded from the shared household, irrespective of whether she holds any legal title or proprietary interest in the property. At the same time, the law does not elevate this right of residence into an ownership right.

Dismissing the appeal, the court upheld the family court's rejection of the wife's claim, holding that her sacrifices as a homemaker, though invaluable, did not by themselves create a legal ownership right in her husband’s immovable property.

- Ends

Tune In