Husband killed wife for dowry: Why Kerala High Court invokes rare ‘Slayer Rule’ to block him from her property

“This 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 observed on January 19.

The court clarified that in the absence of a specific enabling provision to disqualify a murderer in the Indian Succession Act, the court must apply the common law “Slayer Rule” as a matter of public policy.

What is ‘Slayer Rule’?

• Under the common law doctrine of “Slayer Rule”, a person who feloniously and intentionally kills another is disqualified from inheriting the property and receiving the proceeds of the victim he killed.
• The rule originated from the United States and has been consistently applied by courts as justice, equity, and good conscience.
• Later, many states in the US adopted the principle underlying the doctrine and enacted a statute that prohibits a murderer from inheriting.
• In the United Kingdom, the rule is commonly called the “Forfeiture Rule,” which was later translated into a statute – the Forfeiture Act, 1982.
• In Mutual Life vs Armstrong, the first American case to consider the issue of whether a slayer could profit from their crime, the US Supreme Court set forth the No Profit theory.
• The term “No Profit” was coined by legal scholar Adam D. Hansen in an effort to distinguish early common law cases that applied a similar outcome when dealing with slayers.
• No Profit theory, a public policy justification of a slayer statutes: “It would be a reapproach to the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance policy payable on the death of the party whose life he had feloniously taken.”
• In Riggs vs Palmer, the court of appeals of New York issued an opinion in 1889 applying what eventually became known as the slayer rule, which bars a murderer from benefiting under the victim’s will or otherwise inheriting the victim’s property.
• Its applicability to the Indian context has, however, remained largely unnoticed.
• But whenever the courts applied the principle, it was largely based on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.

Courts can’t take view that erodes social morality

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, contains an enabling provision that disqualifies a murderer from inheritance.
  Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provides that a killer cannot take profit from his crime, and the Indian Courts have largely reaffirmed this principle.
• But there are no pari materia provisions under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• The cases which were decided to date largely dealt with cases involving parties governed by either codified Hindu law or the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• But never in the legal history has there been a case where the parties are governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
• It is indisputable that the husband was convicted for the murder of his wife and sentenced under Section 498A read with Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
• If the husband were present before this court, the result of this discussion would not have been different because the issue raised in this appeal is largely based on public policy, and the courts cannot take a view that will erode social morality.

Murder for dowry

• The case arose from a tragic set of events following the marriage of a petitioner’s daughter and the respondent in 1996.
• At the time of the marriage, a settlement deed was executed in favour of the couple as dowry.
• However, dissatisfied with the land provided, the resplendent husband demanded cash, leading to a fixed deposit of Rs 75,000 being placed in the couple’s joint names.
• In May 1997, just months after the marriage, the husband murdered his wife.
• He was subsequently convicted under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Because the fixed deposit is maturing and that the victim’s mother is the sole legal heir, she filed a suit for declaration and injunction to claim the fixed deposit, arguing that, as the sole legal heir, she should receive the funds.
• Both the additional munsiff’s court and the additional district court dismissed the suit.