The Allahabad High Court has recently delivered a judgment clarifying the ownership of property purchased by a husband in his wife's name, particularly when the wife is a homemaker with no independent source of income. The court has stated that in such cases, the property is presumed to be family property, not the sole property of the wife.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, while hearing a case involving a son's claim to co-ownership of his deceased father's property, observed that it is common for Hindu husbands to purchase properties in their wives' names. The court reasoned that under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption that a property bought by a Hindu husband in the name of his wife, who is a homemaker without an independent income, is intended for the benefit of the family and thus belongs to the family.

The court clarified that this presumption can be challenged if it is proven that the wife purchased the property using her own income. However, unless such proof is provided, the property is deemed to have been acquired by the husband using his funds and, therefore, becomes part of the joint Hindu family property.

This ruling arose from a case filed by a son, Saurabh Gupta, seeking co-ownership of one-fourth of a property purchased by his father. The property was in the name of his mother, who stated that her husband had gifted it to her as she had no independent income. The trial court rejected the son's application for an interim injunction, but the High Court overturned this decision. The High Court held that the property should be protected from the creation of third-party rights, as it is prima facie considered property of the joint Hindu family.

The court also referenced Proviso (iii) of Section 2(9)(b) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which states that a property purchased by a husband in the name of his wife or children is not considered a Benami property. Instead, it is deemed to be purchased by the husband from his own resources.

This judgment aligns with previous rulings, such as the case of Kuldeep Sharma vs. Satyendra Kumar Sharma (2001), which established that if a Hindu husband buys property in the name of his homemaker wife, it is presumed to be a benami transaction unless proven otherwise. However, it also takes into account the ruling in Benami Edla Gopi Lrs vs Purushottam (2020), which stated that the property cannot be considered part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) unless it is proven that the payment was made from HUF funds.

In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court's decision emphasizes that properties purchased by Hindu husbands in the names of their homemaker wives are generally considered family property unless it can be proven that the wife independently financed the purchase. This ruling reinforces the legal principle that such transactions are often made for the benefit of the entire family and should be treated accordingly.