In a significant ruling, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of the Madras High Court (HC) has held that a homemaker wife has an equal share in properties purchased by her husband. Justice Krishnan emphasised that the wife's indirect contributions to the family, such as looking after the household, entitle her to an equal right over assets even if they were acquired using the husband's earnings.

According to Justice Krishnan, there is no legal barrier preventing judges from recognising the contributions made by a wife in facilitating her husband's property purchases. He stated, "If the acquisition of assets is made by the joint contribution, directly or indirectly, of both spouses for the welfare of the family, certainly both are entitled to an equal share."

The judgement was rendered in a case involving Kannaian Naidu and his wife. Kannaian Naidu had been employed in Saudi Arabia, while his wife stayed in India, taking care of their children and family. Using the money sent by Kannaian, his wife purchased several properties in his name. However, upon his return to India, Kannaian accused his educated wife of being "crafty and wily." He alleged that she intended to claim the properties she had purchased on his behalf and had sought assistance from another man with whom she allegedly had an affair to alienate the properties.

Previously, Kannaian had appealed to the Additional District and Sessions Court in Chidambaram, where the judge granted his wife an equal share in the assets. After Kannaian's death due to age-related ailments, his children aligned with him and approached the Madras HC to challenge their mother's claim.

However, Justice Krishnan of the Madras HC noted that Kannaian was able to pursue "gainful employment" abroad because his wife had taken care of their home and three children, thus making his stay comfortable. The judge further pointed out that one of the properties was purchased in Kannaian's name after his wife pledged her jewellery. Although Kannaian subsequently retrieved her jewels using his earnings, the court ruled that he could not assert complete rights over the property. Kannaian contended that the jewellery his wife had pledged was gifted to her by him and therefore purchased with his earnings. However, the Madras HC stated that once the gifts were presented, Kannaian was not entitled to claim them back.