Homemaker entitled to half of husband's share: Madras HC

Chennai, June 24 The Madras High Court has held that a homemaker is entitled to half of her husband's property.

A single-judge bench of Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy said that a homemaker performs round-the-clock job managing a home without any break from this routine.

The judge said that a woman taking care of the home also performs the job of a home doctor by providing basic medical support to family members.

He said that a homemaker would be entitled to an equal share in properties purchased by her husband with his earnings. The court said that the husband would not have earned money without the support of his wife looking after the family.

The court said, "The property may have been purchased either in the name of husband or wife, nevertheless if must be considered to be purchased with money saved from the joint efforts of both husband and wife."

A woman cannot be left without anything to call her own after having devoted herself to taking care of her husband and children. The court said that even though no legislation has so far been enacted to recognise the contribution made by a homemaker, the courts could very well recognize the contribution and ensure that women get a fair deal when it comes to rewarding their sacrifices.

It made the observation while disposing of a 2016 second appeal by an individual, Kannian, against his estranged wife whom he had married in 1965. The couple had two sons and a daughter. The man took up a job in Saudi Arabia between 1983 and 1994.

After reaching India, he filed a complaint that his wife was usurping the properties purchased with his earnings and also alleged the woman was having an extramarital affair.

After he passed away, his children fought the case against their mother Kamsala Ammal. The aged woman had sought a share in the properties of her husband. In 2015, a local court had rejected Ammal's claim for an equal share in three of his five properties and assets.

The single bench judge of the Madras High Court, however, held that even though the contested properties had been acquired by her husband from his own savings, Ammal was entitled to a fifty per cent share.