In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court has declared that a husband convicted of causing the dowry death of his wife is disqualified from inheriting her property under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act. This decision was rendered by Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar, who overruled the Testamentary Department’s stance that only those convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are disqualified from inheritance.
Justice Jamadar clarified that Section 25 disqualifies anyone who commits or abets murder from inheriting the deceased’s property. He emphasised that the term “murder” should be interpreted in its ordinary sense, rather than relying solely on its technical definition under Section 300 of the IPC. This interpretation aims to prevent a murderer from benefiting from their wrongdoing.
“The Hindu Succession Act and the IPC operate in different domains,” Justice Jamadar noted. “Therefore, the term ‘murder’ should be understood in its common usage, implying causing or abetting the death of the person whose property is to be inherited.”
The court highlighted that Section 304-B of the IPC, which pertains to dowry deaths, involves circumstances where the death is not due to natural causes, indicating it as homicidal. The judge pointed out that the legislative intent behind creating a separate offence for dowry deaths was to address its serious nature and curb its occurrence.
Justice Jamadar stated, “The offence of dowry death under Section 304-B is not a minor offence compared to murder under Section 302. A person convicted of causing a dowry death falls within the scope of disqualification under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act if this fact is proven in a civil court.”
The case stemmed from a plea by a father seeking to disqualify his deceased daughter’s husband and in-laws from inheriting her property, as they were convicted for her dowry death. The Testamentary Department initially argued that the husband and in-laws, as legal heirs, could not be disqualified solely based on their conviction under Section 304-B.
However, the court-appointed amicus curiae supported the father’s plea, arguing that disqualification should not be limited to convictions under Section 302 IPC. The amicus emphasised that the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience dictates that a person should not benefit from their wrongdoing.
After considering all arguments, the High Court sided with the petitioner and the amicus, ruling against the Testamentary Department’s interpretation and reinforcing the broader disqualification principle under the Hindu Succession Act.
