IMPORTANT POINT
Succession – Disqualification – A person who has caused dowry death of a woman, falls within dragnet of disqualification prescribed under Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if said factum is proved to satisfaction of Civil Court.

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. A question of general importance as to whether a person who has caused dowry death within the meaning of section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Penal Code) incurs disqualification to inherit the property of woman, who met the dowry death, under section 25 of the Hindu Succussion Act, 1956, arises for consideration in this petition.

3. The background facts in which the aforesaid question crops up for consideration can be stated in brief as under:-

3a. Ms. Sejal Anurag Jain, the deceased, was the daughter of the petitioner. Marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Anurag Jain, on 6th May, 2013. The deceased passed away on 6th February, 2014 at Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The cause of death was excess bleeding and multiple injuries, as noted during the course of postmortem examination.

3b. The petitioner preferred a petition for grant of a succession certificate in respect of certain debts and securities belonging to the deceased. In paragraph 4 of the petition, the petitioner furnished the particulars of the heirs and next-of-kin left behind by the deceased including Anurag Jain, the husband, Swatantrakumar Jain, father in law, and Kamla Jain, mother in law, (Serial Nos. 1 to 3).

3c. The petitioner averred the abovenamed heirs mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 3 in the table i.e. husband, father in law and mother in law of the deceased, were disqualified to inherit the property of the deceased as they have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A of the Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by a judgment and order dated 31st July, 2019 passed by the Court of Session at Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Thus, the husband and in-laws of the deceased being directly responsible for the death of the deceased were barred from inheriting the property of the deceased.

3d. As the mother of the deceased, Kiran Jain mentioned at Serial No. 5 in the table, expired during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner being the father, is the only surviving legal heir of the deceased.

4. On 14th June, 2023, the officer on special duty, Testamentary Department raised an objection to the tenability of the petition at the instance of the petitioner/ father of the deceased questioning his capacity as the husband of the deceased was alive and, in the opinion of the testamentary department, the person convicted for an offence punishable under section 304-B of the Penal Code, cannot be equated with a murderer, who is disqualified under section 25 of the Hindu Succussion Act, 1956.

5. To appreciate the controversy in a correct perspective, it may be apposite to extract the observations in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order dated 14th June, 2023 which articulate the reasons which weighed with the Department. They read as under:-

4] Hence, in a present petition, upon perusal of the copy of the judgment, produced at Exhibit-B, it appears that the husband of the deceased and his relatives were held guilty for above referred offences under Section 304-B of the Penal Code is in respect of the conduct of the persons and held them liable for such death defined in the said section. However, section 299 of the Penal Code provides definition of murder. As per the said provision, direct act of the person is required to cause bodily injury which resulted into a death of said person. Even sec. 107 of the Penal Code and other sections denotes that there must be a criminal agreement between the persons to commit a wrong, that is murder of the person. However, section 304-B of IPC, does not have effect of the definition of the “murder” but it relates to the dowry death. Hence, at this juncture, I cannot travel beyond the definition given in the statute.

5] Submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that husband of the deceased, who is responsible for the death of the deceased. No doubt, submission is not groundless. However, such inte