Husband convicted of dowry death cannot inherit deceased wife's property: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that a husband convicted for the dowry death of his wife cannot inherit her property [Vijayan & anr v Appukutta].

Justice Easwaran S held that the common law doctrine referred to as the 'Slayer Rule', which bars a killer from inheriting the victim's estate, can be applied to such cases, even if there is no express provision barring such inheritance under the applicable inheritance law.

The judge observed that courts are empowered to prevent a person from benefiting from their own wrongdoing by applying common law doctrines when legislation does not address a particular issue, provided such application of the doctrine does not violate constitutional principles.

"The present case is a classic example where the court must step in and apply the principle of justice, equity and good conscience rather than adopting a pedantic approach by stating that since the statute is silent, the party cannot seek any relief," the Court added.

It noted that, in the present case, the lower courts had adopted a very technical approach by permitting the husband to inherit his deceased wife's property, solely because the law did not expressly prohibit it.

The High Court held that allowing such an inheritance of the wife's property by a husband who murdered her would go completely against public policy and social morality.

".... the issue raised in this appeal is largely based on the public policy and that the courts cannot take a view which will erode social morality. Therefore, this Court is inclined to think that the findings rendered by the courts below are completely perverse and warrant interference," the Court held.

The case concerned the property of a woman who was murdered by her husband over dowry demands.

The couple married in November 1996, according to Christian customs. Before the marriage, the deceased's mother (plaintiff) and brother had executed a settlement deed, granting 20 cents of land to the couple as Sthreedhanam (gift to the bride/ dowry property).

Unsatisfied, the husband continued demanding additional dowry and later received ₹75,000, which was deposited in a joint bank account.

However, on May 25, 1997, the husband murdered his wife and was subsequently convicted for dowry death under Section 304B and for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

After the woman's death, her mother (plaintiff) filed a civil suit to claim the amount in the joint deposit account and asserted rights over certain land belonging to the woman. The plaintiff argued that she was her deceased daughter's sole legal heir

The deceased woman's husband (defendant) did not contest the proceedings. Yet, an additional munsiff court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that there was no legal provision in the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (applicable to Christians) disqualifying a husband who murdered his wife from inheriting the spouse's property, unlike Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

An additional district court later affirmed the munsiff court's decision, prompting the plaintiff/ deceased woman's mother to approach the High Court for relief.

Before the Court, the central issue was whether courts could apply the doctrine 'Slayer Rule' in the absence of a statutory provision.

The Court acknowledged that while the Hindu Succession Act explicitly bars a murderer from inheriting his/ her victim's estate, no equivalent provision existed in the Indian Succession Act.

However, it held that the absence of a statutory provision would not prevent courts from applying broader principles of 'justice, equity and good conscience,' and stated that the doctrine of 'Slayer Rule' could be applied to the present case.

Since the husband had been convicted of his wife's murder, the Court held that he was disqualified from inheriting his deceased wife's property.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the mother's appeal, setting aside the lower court orders and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs (deceased woman's family).

Advocate M Hemalatha appeared for the plaintiffs.

Advocate M R Jayaprasad represented the husband.

[Read Judgment]