Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7843
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
C.D.MINI – Appellant
Versus
C.C.JOY – Respondent
Mat.Appeal 317 2012
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SENIOR.), SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV, SRI.T.R.JERRY SEBASTIAN, SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB, SRI.P.C.HARIDAS, SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH, SRI.AUGUSTUS BINU, SRI.M.ANJU THOMAS
The judgment underscores the principle that property transactions must reflect true ownership intentions, with close scrutiny over financial dependencies in marriage determining rightful ownership under the Benami Transactions Act.
Headnote:
Benami - Divorce and Property Dispute - The Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988 - Sections 3(1), 3(2)(a) - The act sets out the provisions against benami transactions, with specific emphasis on the exclusion for properties purchased in the name of a spouse, which the court evaluates against established tests to determine the real ownership.
Fact of the Case:
The husband provided a child born from his illicit relationship to his wife, presenting the child as adopted. Upon discovering the truth, the wife filed for divorce and disputed property ownership, leading to multiple OPs concerning claims of ownership over various properties acquired during marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the transactions under the Benami Transactions Act, using tests established by the Supreme Court to determine ownership authenticity. The findings indicated where properties should be classified as benami, primarily benefitting the husband, while confirming the wife's ownership in certain instances.
Issues: Whether the property transactions executed during the marriage were benami transactions and to ascertain the rightful ownership of the properties in dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the nature of ownership and the intention behind transactions to determine their classification as benami, adjudicating claims based on established legal tests and the evidence of financial transactions.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed in part, affirming some marital property ownership claims and rejecting others based on the benami nature of those transactions.
J U D G M E N T
Sophy Thomas, J.
PRELUDE “Brood parasitism” is a breeding strategy adopted by some birds, insects and fishes to raise their young. The most familiar example is a cuckoo laying eggs in a crow's nest to raise their young by befooling the crow. Homosapiens also seem to have started adopting that strategy to befool their life partners.
2. Here is a case where a husband, after begetting a child in his employee, took that child to his wife, a barren lady, as if that child was abandoned by an unwed Nurse and offered for adoption. The innocent wife nurtured that child believing the child to be an adopted one, giving the love and warmth of a mother. The wicked husband continued his illicit relationship with the employee and often took the child to its biological mother to be in company with her. After about five years, the wife realised that, her husband was the biological father of that child and the child was born in his illicit relationship with the employee. Realising the height of cheating she was subjected to, she returned to her paternal home. When her brothers intervened, he admitted paternity of the child but he was not ready to give up his illicit relationship with the employee who delivered his child. Thereafter the wife did not come back to continue her marital relationship with the husband. Their life boat which was otherwise sailing smoothly sunk in deep sea due to the infidelity and distrust of her life partner. The wife was compelled to break the nuptial tie as her dreams and aspirations regarding the sanctity of marriage were shattered due to the illicit connection, which her husband had with his employee. Bringing the child born out of his illicit relationship, to be taken care of by his wife as if it was an adopted child, added insult upon injury.
3. The couple lived together for about 16½ years smoothly, doing various business activities and acquiring lot of properties in their name jointly and severally. The wife left the husband on 07.03.2006 knowing about the cheating played upon her by the husband. As the husband was not ready to give up his illicit connection with the employee, she filed Divorce O.P before the Family Court, Thrissur on 23.03.2006. Thereafter, the husband filed O.P No.559 of 2006 against the wife for a declaration that he was the beneficial owner and the wife was only a name lender/benamidar in the property transactions, and claiming injunction against her with respect to item No.1 to 17 properties. Subsequently, the wife filed O.P No.775 of 2006 before the very same court, against the husband, and the minor son born to him in his employee, for a declaration that she is the beneficial owner and the respondents are only name lenders/benamidars in 'F' to 'P' schedule properties and in the alternative, for a partition, and injunction - both mandatory and prohibitory, with respect to 'A' to 'E' schedule properties, and also to get back 'Q' schedule movables or its equivalent value.
4. The Family Court tried those three cases together treating O.P No.366 of 2006, the O.P for divorce filed by the wife, as the leading case. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.A1 to A72 were marked from the side of the wife. RWs 1 to 69 were examined and Exts.B1 to B237 were marked from the side of the husband. Exts.X1 to X324 were marked as witness exhibits and Ext.C1 and C1(a) were marked as Court Exhibits.
5. The Family Court, Thrissur, after evaluating the facts, evidence and circumstances, allowed O.P No.366 of 2006 dissolving their marriage, dismissed O.P No.559 of 2006, and decreed in part O.P No.775 of 2006 as per common judgment dated 31.12.2011.
6. Challenging the decree of divorce in O.P No.366 of
2006, the husband filed Mat.Appeal No.244 of 2012. Against dismissal of O.P No.559 of 2006, the husband filed Mat.Appeal No.243 of 2012. Against the relief granted to the wife vide decree in O.P No.775 of 2006, the husband filed Mat.Appeal No.242 of 2012. Against the relief which was declined in O.P No.775
