In terms of a judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal on 30 November, the court determined that the matrimonial home, built on a plot acquired from the Housing Authority before marriage belonged to both spouses in equal shares even though it was acquired before marriage by the husband alone.

In this case, the husband contended that the matrimonial home was his paraphernal property and that his wife had no share in the ownership.

The plot had, however, been part of a scheme put forward by the Housing Authority in favour of engaged or married couples.

The court noted that the application for the plot had been signed by both parties as an engaged couple and the Housing Authority had taken note of the income of both parties when deciding on their eligibility to form the scheme.

The court observed that at the time of application (1982) the Housing Authority pursued a policy which required that the promise of sale (convenium) and the final contract of purchase be signed by the male applicant and that the fact that the female applicant had not appeared on these contracts was a result of this administrative procedure and not willed on her part.

The court concluded that the scheme under which the plot had been sold by the Housing Authority was intended precisely to benefit engaged or married couples and that a single person could not acquire under this scheme alone.

The fact that the husband had alone appeared on the deed of purchase before the marriage did not, therefore, make him sole owner of the plot and of the house built on it.

The Court considered that the male applicant could not have acquired for his sole benefit but appeared also for and on behalf of the female applicant (gharusa) by a tacit mandate.

Dr Lorraine Schembri Orland appeared for the woman in this case.