Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sunil Abraham, and the respondent, Reeth Abraham (also known as Reeth Devaiah), were married and later divorced. During the marriage, the appellant acquired a property at No. 609, 6th Block, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru, which became the matrimonial home. After the divorce, the appellant filed a suit for partition (O.S. No. 137/2017) claiming that the property was his self-acquired property and that the respondent had no right to it. The respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction (O.S. No. 220/2022) seeking to be put back in possession of the property, alleging that she was illegally dispossessed. The Family Court dismissed both suits, holding that the property was the appellant's self-acquired property and that the respondent had no right to it. The appellant appealed against the dismissal of the partition suit, and the respondent appealed against the dismissal of the mandatory injunction suit. The High Court of Karnataka, in a common judgment, allowed both appeals. The court held that the property was acquired during the marriage and was used as the matrimonial home. The court applied the principle that property acquired during marriage is presumed to be joint family property, especially when the wife contributed to the household and the property was used for the family. The court set aside the Family Court's judgments and decreed partition of the property, granting the respondent a share. The court also granted the mandatory injunction, directing the appellant to put the respondent back in possession of the property.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Partition - Joint Family Property - Section 27 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 - Property acquired during marriage by husband with his own funds is presumed to be joint family property if the wife contributed to the household and the property was used for the family - The court held that the property at No. 609, 6th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru, was acquired during the marriage and was used as the matrimonial home, and the wife's contributions to the household and her role as a homemaker gave her a right to claim partition - The Family Court's dismissal of the partition suit was set aside (Paras 10-25). B) Family Law - Mandatory Injunction - Section 27 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 - Wife's right to reside in matrimonial home - The court held that the wife is entitled to a mandatory injunction to be put back in possession of the matrimonial home, as she was illegally dispossessed by the husband - The Family Court's dismissal of the mandatory injunction suit was set aside (Paras 26-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the property acquired during the marriage by the husband is his self-acquired property or joint family property, and whether the wife is entitled to partition and mandatory injunction.
Final Decision
Both appeals allowed. The judgment and decree dated 14.10.2024 in O.S.No.137/2017 and O.S.No.220/2022 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, are set aside. The appellant's suit for partition is decreed, and the respondent's suit for mandatory injunction is decreed. The respondent is entitled to a share in the property and to be put back in possession.
Law Points
- Joint family property
- partition
- mandatory injunction
- Family Courts Act
- 1984
- Section 27
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 14
- matrimonial property
- presumption of jointness
