Husband Convicted For Causing Dowry Death Cannot Inherit Deceased Wife's Property Under Hindu Succession Act: Bombay High Court
A husband convicted for causing the dowry death of his wife stands disqualified from inheriting the property of the deceased wife as provided under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Bombay High Court held recently.
Single-judge Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar rejected the argument of the Testamentary Department which opined that a person convicted for causing dowry death (under section 304-B of the IPC) cannot be equated with a 'murderer' as prescribed under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the law only disqualifies a person convicted for murder (under section 302 of the IPC).
The Court emphasised that Section 25 of the Act disqualified a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder. This expression, it said, must be construed as to advance the object of the Act, which is to disallow devolution of property upon deceased's murderer.
"The term, murder has not been defined in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The definition of the offence of murder under section 300 of the IPC, which is a technical definition for imposing punishment prescribed under section 302 of the IPC cannot be readily imported to construe the term, murder. It is not the correct approach to interpret the term used in one enactment dealing with inheritance and succession by importing the definition of a similar term used in a Penal Statute," the judge said in the order passed on July 2.
Plainly, the Hindu Succession Act, and the Indian Penal Code, the bench said, do not operate in the same field.
"Therefore, the term, murder ought to receive its ordinary and common parlance connotation. If so construed, it implies causing the death of the person or abetting the causing of death of the person, whose property is sought to be inherited, by the person who is alleged to have incurred the disqualification," the judge explained.
Further referring to Section 304-B IPC, the bench pointed out that the essential ingredient for an offence under the provision is that the death must be homicidal.
"It would suffice if the death has occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances meaning thereby the death not in the usual course but under suspicious circumstances, even if it is not caused by burns or bodily injury. What is of pivotal significance is the death of a woman, under the circumstances, indicated by section 304-B," the bench observed.
The judge even noted the legislative intendment in providing for a separate offence of dowry death and to curb its menace, the Parliament considered it necessary to carve out a separate offence under section 304-B of the IPC.
"It is also necessary to note that the offence of dowry death punishable under section 304-B can not be said to be a minor offence viz a viz the offence of murder punishable under section 302," the judge held.
Further, the judge held, "The conspectus of the consideration is that a person who has caused the dowry death of a woman, falls within the dragnet of disqualification prescribed under section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, if the said factum is proved to the satisfaction of the Civil Court."
Therefore, the judge said, the Department was not justified in questioning the competence of the petitioner (deceased woman's father) on the count that the husband of the deceased has not been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 but under section 304-B of the IPC.
Background:
The significant order comes on a plea by a father who sought a declaration that his now deceased daughter's husband and in-laws, who are presently lodged in a jail, stand disqualified for inheriting his daughter's properties as they are convicted for causing her dowry death.
The Testamentary Department, however, questioned the father's plea on the ground that the in-laws and the husband were the legal heirs of the deceased. The department argued that the in-laws and husband cannot be disqualified just because they are convicted for causing dowry death as the Hindu Succession Act disqualifies only the ones who are convicted for murder.
Meanwhile, court-appointed amicus curiae submitted that it is not the requirement of law that the person who has allegedly incurred the disqualification, must be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC only. The disqualification, the amicus said, even before the introduction of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, was based on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
"The underlying principle was that a person should not benefit from his own wrong," he had told the court.
Having considered all the contentions, the bench agreed with the petitioner and the amicus and rejected the arguments of the department.
Appearance:
Advocate Neeraj Patil appeared for the Petitioner
Advocate Anuj Desai was appointed as an Amicus Curiae.
Case Details: Pawan Jain vs Sejal Jain (Testamentary Petition 807 of 2020)