Madras HC Gives Son Two Hours To Pay Last Respects To Father, Then Directs Body Handed To Wife And Two Other Sons

In brief

The question

1. Whether the deceased’s mortal remains should be handed over exclusively to the petitioner for cremation and the performance of last rites.

The court held

The Court declined to direct exclusive handover of the mortal remains to the petitioner.

It also directed

It directed the third respondent, after completion of the post-mortem, to take the remains to the petitioner’s residence and permit the petitioner and his family to pay their respects for two hours; thereafter, the remains were to be handed over to respondents 5–7.

The petitioner was also permitted to visit their residence and participate in his father’s last rites.

The petition was disposed of on those terms.

01Facts

The petitioner, one of the deceased’s three sons, sought custody of his father’s mortal remains to conduct the funeral, asking that his mother and two brothers be permitted to attend but not interfere.

p. 2

After the deceased died on 28 October 2026, the petitioner initially took custody of the body.

p. 3

The deceased’s wife then complained that the death was suspicious and sought a post-mortem; police registered Crime No. 329 of 2026, and the body was taken for post-mortem examination and kept at ESI Hospital, K.K. Nagar.

p. 3

The petitioner claimed that he had cared for his father and that his father wished him to perform the last rites.

p. 3

The wife and two brothers disputed his account and alleged that he had removed the deceased to advance property interests.

pp. 3–4

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the deceased’s mortal remains should be handed over exclusively to the petitioner for cremation and the performance of last rites.

p. 2, 5

ii.2. Whether, if exclusive handover was not appropriate, the petitioner should be allowed to pay his respects and participate in the last rites.

p. 5

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Section 528 of the BNSS.

p. 2

The Court’s stated basis was the case-specific circumstance that the deceased’s wife was alive and had lodged the complaint underlying the FIR, expressing suspicion about the circumstances of his death; on that basis, the remains would not be handed over exclusively to the petitioner.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

04Reasoning

The Court considered the competing family accounts but did not resolve their underlying disputes.

p. 5

It noted that the deceased was survived by his wife and three sons, that the wife and the other two sons lived in the home where the deceased had lived for many years, and that the FIR followed the wife’s complaint of suspicion against the petitioner and his wife.

p. 5

In those circumstances, the Court rejected exclusive custody by the petitioner, while arranging for him and his family to pay their respects before the remains were handed over to the wife and two brothers.

p. 5