PROPERTY PURCHASED DURING MARRIAGE!

In this case, the overall effect of the pleadings and evidence is that:

1. The suit property was purchased with the husband’s money, in the wife’s name.
2. The husband secured a Bank loan for the purchase of the property. This would mean that the property is mortgaged to the bank.
3. The husband continues to be liable for the loan and is making repayment towards installments.
4. The suit property became the family home as long as parties were married.
5. The appellant wife left the property in 2010 and never returned. The parties later dissolved their marriage by mutual consent
6. The two children live with the husband, in the suit property.
7. Though the defendant/wife stated that she was repaying the loan, she was unable to prove that allegation.
8. The husband, in the cross examination stated that since stamp duty payable was at a lower rate if the vendees were women, he decided to purchase stamp paper in the wife’s name, and complete the transaction.

On the basis of the above it can clearly be held that the plaintiff discharged the onus which lay upon him to prove that the property was purchased not for the wife’s benefit, but for that of the family as a whole.