The court concluded that property ownership conclusions are based solely on financial contribution, affirming that joint ownership claims require substantive proof of both parties' financial involvement.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Colabawalla, J. -The above Family Court Appeal impugns the Judgment and Decree dated 11th March 2013 passed by the Family Court at Bandra. By the impugned Judgment, the Family Court has:

(a) dismissed the Petition for judicial separation [under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] filed by Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh [for short the 'Original Appellant'] against the Respondent;

(b) decreed the Respondent's counterclaim for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i-a) [on the ground of cruelty] and 13(1)(i-b) [on the ground of desertion] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and

(c) held that the Respondent is the sole and absolute owner of Flat No. 404, Marina Apartments CHS, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai -400049 [for short the 'Juhu Flat'].

2. Originally, the Petition seeking judicial separation was filed by Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh [the Original Appellant] who was the wife of the Respondent. She was previously married and has a son from her previous marriage [the present Appellant]. The above Family Court Appeal was also originally filed by Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh as she was aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Family Court on 11th March 2013. During the pendency of the above Appeal, the said Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh [the Original Appellant] passed away on 15th January 2022. Accordingly, pursuant to order dated 9th June 2023 passed in Interim Application No. 4753 of 2023, the present Appellant, namely, the son of Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh from her first marriage, was substituted as the Appellant being her legal heir. The said Mrs. Rajeshri V. Mahesh and the Respondent had no children from their marriage.

3. Be that as it may, in view of the death of Rajeshri V. Mahesh, the Appeal against the impugned Judgment, in so far as it dismisses her Petition for judicial separation and decrees the Respondent's counterclaim for divorce, is not pressed by Mr. Seth, the learned advocate appearing for the present Appellant. The sole issue for consideration and which now survives in the above Family Court Appeal, is the correctness of the Family Court's order that the Respondent is the sole and absolute owner of the Juhu Flat.

4. To consider whether the Family Court's finding on this issue is correct or otherwise, it would be necessary to set out some brief facts. In September 1970, the Respondent became an employee of one M/s. Woolcombers of India ['Woolcombers'], a subsidiary of Duncan Brothers. Accordingly, in October 1972, the Respondent was provided accommodation by Woolcombers at Flat No. 123, Mehr-Naz, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai [for short the 'Cuffe Parade Flat']. Woolcombers were the tenants of the Cuffe Parade Flat and the landlords were one Mr. and Mrs. Rangnekar.

5. On 27th December 1977, the Respondent married the said Rajeshri V. Mahesh [the Original Appellant], who thereafter began residing with him in the Cuffe Parade Flat. In the year 1979, the Respondent left the employment of Woolcombers and joined Tata Exports Ltd. He also claimed tenancy in relation to the Cuffe Parade Flat and filed R.A.E Suit No. 183/262/1979 in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai against the landlords for fixation of standard rent in respect of the Cuffe Parade Flat. Certain other proceedings were also initiated b