Can A Spouse Claim Exclusive Ownership Of A Jointly Registered Property?

A recent Delhi High Court ruling has once again clarified a critical aspect of matrimonial law in India: a spouse cannot claim exclusive ownership over a jointly registered property simply because he alone paid for it. 

In a recent case, the husband argued that since he had borne the full purchase cost and the wife was not earning, the flat should belong solely to him.

The court rejected this stand, reaffirming that joint title carries a presumption of equal ownership and that a homemaker’s non-financial contributions—childcare, domestic work, and enabling the earning spouse’s career—form part of the family’s collective financial ecosystem.

Legal experts say that for jointly-owned assets acquired during marriage, Indian courts presume equal ownership, regardless of who paid the purchase price.

For instance, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), follows a separate-property regime, unlike the community-property systems in some Western jurisdictions. This means that each spouse, after divorce, retains ownership of assets acquired in their name, and there is no statutory mechanism for equal division of assets post separation.

Says Mayank Arora, partner, Chambers of Bharat Chugh: “Section 27 of the HMA allows courts to distribute only jointly-owned property of the spouses. It is important to note that gifts received by the wife during the subsistence of the marriage is deemed to be solely owned by the wife (stridhan) and is excluded from this provision.” 

Assets registered in the name of either of the spouse remain theirs unless the other proves a beneficial interest in such assets. For jointly-owned assets, courts presume equal shares of both parties, unless evidence suggests otherwise.

In a few recent judgments, like Sangeeta Gera vs. Sanjeev Gera 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected a husband’s claim of sole ownership over a jointly-registered flat, citing the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, which bars claims of exclusive ownership when property is held in another’s name. The court recognised the wife’s domestic contributions, affirming that common funds used for loan repayments include her non-monetary efforts, and entitle her to a 50 per cent share.

“On the contrary, in some cases when property title is in the name of one spouse but both have contributed towards its acquisition, courts may treat it as a joint asset. If one spouse proves sole financing from legitimate sources, they may retain full ownership, as seen in Arun Das v. Aparna Das (Tripura HC), where the husband’s sole payment led to the wife holding her share in trust for him. Without any such proof adduced by the spouse, equal shares are presumed by courts,” says Arora.

Under Muslim Personal Law, each spouse retains their earnings, with dower (mehr) being the wife’s exclusive property, payable upon divorce. The Indian Divorce Act, 1869, and Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, follow a similar separate-property approach, allowing alimony but limited property redistribution. The Special Marriage Act, 1954, mirrors Section 27 of the HMA for inter-faith marriages.

What Happens To Stridhan In Case Of A divorce?

Stridhan encompasses property that a woman receives at various life stages before, during, or after marriage, or during childbirth or widowhood which may include jewellery, cash, and gifts from relatives and friends and well-wishers.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld a woman’s absolute ownership over her stridhan. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (1985), the court ruled that husbands or in-laws act as trustees, and withholding stridhan constitutes criminal breach of trust. Courts have affirmed the wife's sole autonomy over her stridhan.

“In divorce proceedings also, stridhan remains the wife’s exclusive property and is not subject to division. Courts routinely order the return of stridhan, such as jewellery or cash, to the wife, with refusal amounting to criminal breach of trust. 

Stridhan is distinct from dowry, which is illegal under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Voluntary gifts to the bride by the families and friends constitute her ‘stridhan’,” says Arora.

What Happens If The Wife Also Earns?

Maintenance of wife and children is governed by Section 24 (interim maintenance) and Section 25 (permanent) of the HMA, Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Maintenance can also be ordered by the courts under the Domestic Violence Act.

While making such orders, the courts consider various factors like the parties’ financial status, the wife’s needs, her own income, the marital standard of living prior to disputes, employment sacrifices made by the wife, litigation costs, and the husband’s capacity to pay.

“In Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), the Supreme Court emphasised that maintenance should prevent destitution of the wife and children, and must be sufficient to support a comparable lifestyle to the wife and children post-divorce or during separation,” says Arora.

A wife’s earnings do not automatically disqualify her from maintenance. Courts assess whether her income suffices for a lifestyle akin to that which she was enjoying in her marital home, especially if she also is supporting children or other dependents. Though maintenance amounts are adjusted based on the wife's earnings but may still be awarded if her income is significantly lower than the husband’s.

For property division, joint assets are typically split equally post-divorce, regardless of the wife’s earnings. Assets titled in one spouse’s name remain separate unless joint contribution is proven by the other spouse.

To conclude, Indian matrimonial law lacks a comprehensive framework for dividing marital assets and there is a clear need for a comprehensive legislation on this issue.

“The recent rulings of courts, however, highlight a judicial shift toward recognising non-monetary contributions, ensuring that jointly-owned property is divided equally between the spouses. Notably, at all times stridhan remains the wife’s exclusive property,” says Arora, adding that until legislative reforms introduce a matrimonial property regime, courts are invariably bridging the gaps through equitable rulings, safeguarding non-earning wives from financial disadvantage post-divorce.