Back
: Wife's Property Not Attachable for Husband's Debt Even If Gift Was Fraudulent
In a significant ruling on , the has held that the of a 's wife cannot be attached in , even if the wife was privy to a made by her husband to defeat the 's claim. The Court, however, provided a pathway for relief under .
The Core Question: Can a Wife's Property Be Seized for Her Husband's Debt?
The case arose from a decree passed by the in the UAE on , directing the first respondent (the ) to pay AED 3,40,000 (approximately ₹75,75,200) to the petitioner, Abdul Basith Kurikkalakath. When the fled the UAE to avoid arrest, the filed an execution petition before the on . Alarmingly, just 42 days earlier—on —the had gifted his property to his wife, the second respondent. The wife then mortgaged the property with a bank and later sold it to a third party.
The impleaded the wife and sought of her , arguing that since both husband and wife were governed by Mohamedan Law and the gift was intended to defraud creditors, she should be held liable. The execution court rejected this plea, prompting the to approach the High Court under .
Arguments Presented: Between Personal Law and Procedural Limits
, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the wife was a privy to the fraudulent transfer and that under Muslim personal law, a wife could be held responsible for her husband's debts when the transfer was made to defeat creditors. On the other hand, for the first respondent and other counsel argued that the Code of Civil Procedure only allows of the 's own property, not that of third parties.
The Court’s Reasoning: No Provision Supports of Wife’s Independent Property
Justice Easwaran S. delivered a crisp judgment, noting that neither the personal law of the parties nor any statutory provision permitted such an . The Court observed:
“this Court could not find any provision either in the personal law of the parties nor under the , nor under the , enabling the petitioner/ to proceed against independently, the properties of the wife of a .”
The Judge underscored a fundamental principle: once a decree is passed, the must stay within its four corners and cannot expand it using personal law.
“Irrespective of the nature of the personal law governing the parties, once a decree has been passed by the Court, the cannot travel beyond the scope of the decree and then proceed against the parties based on the personal law.”
A Silver Lining Under Section 53
While upholding the execution court’s order, the High Court pointed out that the is not remediless. Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act allows courts to declare a transfer if it was made to defeat creditors. The Court cited its earlier decision in Jose v. V. P. Devassy [2025 KHC 513], which affirmed that executing courts can conduct such an inquiry.
The Court directed:
“If such a request is made, the executing Court is bound to apply the principles under , and conduct an enquiry as to whether the execution of the gift was intended to defeat the right of the .”
It further clarified that if the gift is found , the subsequent sale to the fourth respondent would also fall.
The Final Decision
Justice Easwaran S. dismissed the original petition, sustaining the impugned order (Ext. P7). However, the was granted liberty to make an application under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act before the execution court. The court ordered that such application, if filed, must be considered on its merits, giving the a real chance to undo the fraudulent transfer.
This judgment reinforces the principle that while decree holders cannot indiscriminately target the assets of a 's relatives, they can still use statutory tools to challenge . The ruling provides a clear balance between protecting third-party rights and ensuring that creditors are not left without recourse against deceitful debtors.
Case: , decided on by Justice Easwaran S.
