The Bombay High Court recently ruled that a husband convicted of causing the dowry death of his wife is disqualified from inheriting her property, as stipulated under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Single-judge Justice Nijamoodin Jamadar dismissed the Testamentary Department's argument that a person convicted of causing dowry death under Section 304-B of the IPC should not be treated as a 'murderer' under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Department contended that the law only disqualifies individuals convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC from inheriting property.

The Court emphasized that Section 25 of the Act disqualifies individuals who commit murder or abet the commission of murder from inheriting property. It clarified that this provision should be interpreted to support the Act's objective of preventing property from devolving upon the murderer of the deceased.

"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.

The bench clarified that the Hindu Succession Act and the Indian Penal Code operate in distinct domains and do not overlap in their application.

"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 of the IPC, the bench noted that a key element for an offence under this provision is that the death must be classified as 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 also highlighted that the legislative intent behind establishing a separate offence of dowry death under Section 304-B of the IPC was to specifically address and combat this issue, reflecting Parliament's recognition of its severity.

The significant order was issued in response to a plea by a father seeking a declaration that his deceased daughter's husband and in-laws, currently imprisoned for her dowry death, are disqualified from inheriting her properties due to their convictions.

The Testamentary Department challenged the father's plea, arguing that the in-laws and husband, being the legal heirs of the deceased, could not be disqualified from inheritance solely based on their conviction for causing dowry death. The department contended that the Hindu Succession Act only disqualifies individuals convicted of murder, not those convicted under Section 304-B for dowry death.

Meanwhile, the court-appointed amicus curiae argued that the law does not mandate that a person must be convicted solely under Section 302 IPC to incur disqualification. The amicus contended that the disqualification, even before the introduction of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, was based on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.