By- VINOD DIXIT

This case comment is a critical appraisal of Om Prakash v. Radhacharan, a case decided by a bench of the Supreme Court in 2009. We are of the opinion that the judgement has disappointed those who cherish the cause of woman-empowerment. A widow, turned out by the in-laws immediately after widowhood, was supported, educated and made capable of lucrative employment by her mother. The woman having earned considerable property, died intestate. The property was claimed by heirs of her mother and of her in-laws. In accordance with the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, the Court decided in favour of the in-laws, who not only violated their legal duty under the provisions of section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, to maintain the daughter in laws, but were her tormentor. If a murderer cannot inherit the property of the victim, why should a tormentor be allowed to inherit the property of the tormented? Not only the Court decided in favour of the in-laws but also dismissed the issues of equity as emotional and sentimental issues, of no consequence. Can the judgement be called ‘per incuriam’ because it is decided without referring to section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act? Had the Court applied the maxim, ‘no one can be allowed to take advantage his own wrongs’, or the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the result could have been different.