https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439690 In a matrimonial property dispute, the court recognised that joint acquisition can arise from both direct financial remittances and a spouse's domestic, caregiving and household contribution, and held that the Benami law did not apply on those facts. Items 1, 2 and 4 were treated as jointly acquired and the spouses were held entitled to equal shares. Property traceable to the wife's stridhana remained her absolute property despite the husband's assistance in redemption, so item 3 belonged exclusively to her. Articles shown by letters and surrounding circumstances to have been gifted by the husband also ceased to be his property, so item 5 was held to belong exclusively to the wife. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jun 2023 00:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439690 In a matrimonial property dispute, the court recognised that joint acquisition can arise from both direct financial remittances and a spouse's domestic, caregiving and household contribution, and held that the Benami law did not apply on those facts. Items 1, 2 and 4 were treated as jointly acquired and the spouses were held entitled to equal shares. Property traceable to the wife's stridhana remained her absolute property despite the husband's assistance in redemption, so item 3 belonged exclusively to her. Articles shown by letters and surrounding circumstances to have been gifted by the husband also ceased to be his property, so item 5 was held to belong exclusively to the wife. Case-Laws Benami Property Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439690