Kerala High Court Bars Husband Convicted For Dowry Death From Inheriting Wife's Estate Under Indian Succession Act

Justice Easwaran S was delivering the judgment in a Regular Second Appeal.

The dispute arose from a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the mother of the deceased woman. Prior to the marriage, a settlement deed had been executed in favour of the daughter and the defendant-husband as Sthreedhanam. Following alleged dowry demands, further funds were deposited in a joint fixed deposit account.

In May 1997, the husband was charged in connection with his wife's death. He was ultimately convicted under Sections 498A(Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 304B (Dowry Death) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment. After his conviction, the wife's mother sought to prevent him from claiming the deposit amount, contending that a person convicted of causing his wife's death cannot be permitted to inherit her estate.

Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that since the parties were governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and not the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there was no statutory provision disqualifying a murderer from succession.

The High Court considered whether, in the absence of an express statutory bar under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a court can apply the common law “Slayer Rule” to prevent a person convicted of killing his spouse from inheriting her property.

Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act explicitly disqualifies a murderer from inheriting the property of the person murdered. However, the Indian Succession Act, does not contain an equivalent provision.

The Court held that the absence of an express provision in the Indian Succession Act does not preclude the application of foundational principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

“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.” Court said

The Court traced the origins of the “Slayer Rule”by discussing the precedents including Mutual Life v. Armstrong [117 US 591, 600(1886)] and Riggs v. Palmer [117 N.Y 506 (1889)], where courts held that no person should be permitted to profit from his own wrongdoing.

The Court observed that while Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act codifies the principle for Hindus, there were no settled precedents on its application beyond the statute.

The Court examined the decision in Swami Shradanand c Mrs Gauhar Taj Namazie & Others [2017 KHC 7483] and Girimallappa Channappa Somsagar v Kenchava San-Yellappa Hosmani [AIR 1921 Bombay 270], were the Courts in different occasion have held that provisions of Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act must be applied beyond its confinement to the provisions of the Act.

The Court thus emphasised that where a statute is silent, courts may apply common law principles so long as they do not contravene constitutional norms.

“The Court is permitted to apply the common law doctrine where the statute does not cater to the situation, provided the application of the principle does not infringe the constitutional principles.” Court noted.

The Court thus held that the respondent, having been convicted under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, stands disqualified from inheriting the property of his deceased wife.

“Since the defendant was convicted for offence and sentenced under Section 498A read with Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, he is disqualified from inheriting the plaint schedule item.” Court held

The Court thus allowed the regular second appeal.

Case No: RSA 463/ 2011

Case Title: Vijayan and Anr. v Appukutta

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 109

Counsel for Appellant: M Hemalatha

Counsel for Respondent: M R Jayaprasad