In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a woman is not required to pay stamp duty for the registration of a property received as part of a divorce settlement. This decision offers significant relief to women entangled in matrimonial disputes, ensuring that financial constraints do not become a barrier in securing property ownership after a legal separation.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, who invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure “complete justice” in the case. This provision allows the Supreme Court to pass orders that may not be directly linked to the matter at hand but are essential for a fair resolution.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a transfer petition filed by a husband, requesting the Supreme Court to shift a divorce case initiated by his wife from Bandra Family Court, Mumbai, to the Karkardooma Family Court in Delhi. Under Indian law, the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such inter-state transfer requests in both civil and criminal cases.
However, instead of merely ruling on the transfer request, the Supreme Court suggested that the couple attempt mediation to amicably resolve their dispute. The mediation was successful, leading the parties to file an application under Article 142, seeking to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent without having to return to the trial court.
The Property Dispute
The only unresolved issue in the divorce settlement was the ownership of a flat in Kalyan. Both the husband and wife had conflicting claims regarding the source of funds used to purchase the property. Eventually, the husband agreed to relinquish his rights in the flat in favor of his wife, and in return, she agreed not to seek alimony.
This raised a crucial legal question—whether the wife would be required to pay stamp duty and registration charges to have the flat transferred in her name.
Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Registration Act, 1908
The court examined Section 17(2)(vi) of The Registration Act, 1908, which deals with documents requiring mandatory registration and those exempt from registration fees.
-
Section 17(1)(b) and (c): Requires registration for non-testamentary instruments that create, limit, or extinguish an interest in immovable property.
-
Section 17(2)(vi): Provides an exemption from registration charges for property transfers that occur as part of a court-ordered settlement.
If a compromise agreement over a property is not part of a court proceeding, then stamp duty must be paid during registration. However, if the property is part of a legal dispute and forms a subject matter of settlement before the court, then registration fees are waived.
Court’s Ruling and Implications
The Supreme Court applied the above interpretation to the case and ruled that:
-
Since the Kalyan flat was a subject of the court-mediated settlement, it qualifies under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act.
-
The wife is exempted from paying stamp duty while registering the property in her name.
-
The sub-registrar of the area was directed to register the flat in the exclusive name of the wife without demanding registration charges.
This judgment sets an important precedent and is expected to benefit numerous women facing financial hardships in matrimonial disputes. By eliminating stamp duty costs for properties awarded through divorce settlements, the ruling ensures that women can secure ownership of residential properties without additional financial burdens.
Why This Judgment is Significant
-
Financial Relief for Women: Reduces economic strain in divorce settlements, ensuring women receive their rightful assets.
-
Legal Clarity: Reinforces the interpretation of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, making it easier for courts to implement similar exemptions.
-
Encourages Fair Settlements: Facilitates smoother divorce proceedings where property transfers are involved.
-
Strengthens Women’s Rights: Empowers women by ensuring that ownership transfers of immovable properties are not hindered by stamp duty costs.
This judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s broader vision of gender justice and equitable matrimonial laws, ensuring that women are not placed at a financial disadvantage during divorce settlements.
