Joint property ownership presumes equal interest without evidence of differing contributions; maintenance claims require substantiation.

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha, J

In this appeal, the appellants who are the petitioners in O.P. No.1087/2011 of Family Court, Ernakulam call into question the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree of dismissal of the said O.P by the Family Court, Ernakulam.

2. The parties shall be referred to in this appeal as per their rank in O.P.NO.1087/2011.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, averments in O.P.No.1087/2011 are as follows:

The marriage of the 1st petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 26.1.1987 as per the rites and customs of the Christian community. The second petitioner is the son born to them in the said wedlock. The 1st petitioner was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹50,000/- from her house at the time of marriage. The respondent was employed abroad at the time of marriage, and is still employed there. Petition schedule property was purchased by the 1st petitioner for an amount of ₹3,25,000/- by selling her gold ornaments and with her brother's financial assistance. Though the 1st petitioner paid the entire sale consideration, the petition schedule property was purchased in the joint name of 1st petitioner and respondent. After purchasing the petition schedule property, she constructed a double-storied building in it, spending ₹10 lakhs. The loan amount of ₹3 lakhs availed from the Canara Bank was repaid by the 1st petitioner. Though the respondent had availed ₹2 lakhs from the bank under the pretext of renovation of the house, he misappropriated the said amount. The said loan was also repaid by the 1st petitioner. She spent another sum of ₹3,50,000/- for the truss work of the petition schedule building. Respondent is trying to alienate the petition schedule property after evicting the petitioners. 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, and the respondent has no right over it. Respondent, who has a monthly income of more than ₹1 lakh, has not provided any maintenance to the petitioners. The following reliefs were sought in the O.P: (i) To declare that the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property with an alternate relief of partition of the petition schedule property and to allot ½ share of the 1st petitioner. (ii) Mandatory injunction directing the respondent to assign his share in the property in favour of the 1st petitioner. (iii) Permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating or encumbering the petition schedule property. (iv) For realisation of ₹7,99,500/- with interest from the respondent and (v) Realisation of ₹3,75,000/- towards past maintenance.

4. The respondent filed written statement denying the ownership right claimed by the 1st petitioner over the petition schedule property. The averments in the O.P that 1st petitioner was given 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹50,000/- cash from her house is denied. No money or ornaments were given to the 1st petitioner from the house. At the time of marriage, the respondent was employed in Qatar and was financially sound. The respondent had entrusted some signed and undated cheque leaves to the 1st petitioner to facilitate her drawing money from the account of the respondent as he was employed abroad. The bank account was opened in the name of the 1st petitioner as advised by the bank manager for facilitating her to withdraw money in the absence of the respondent. Respondent used to send money from Qatar to her bank account for the construction of the house and to meet the expenses of the family. The respondent purchased the petition sched