IMPORTANT POINT
Remarriage will not extinguish or curtail right of a Hindu widow in property of her deceased husband.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Petitioner in the present case is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short ‘LIC’) and its authorities to pay the death claim arising out of life insurance policy no.517337070 which was obtained by one Prem Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Kumar (since deceased). It is the case of the petitioner that while taking the life insurance policy, the said Prem Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Kumar had nominated his mother Mahasundari Devi (respondent no.5) and by virtue of that nomination now after death of life assured the respondent no.5 is claiming the entire insurance proceeds. The petitioner has a grievance because after obtaining the policy the said Prem Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Kumar had solemnized marriage with the present petitioner on 22.04.2015. The petitioner is claiming herself a legally wedded wife of the deceased life assured and is looking for 50% of the proceeds of the death claim.

2. Mr. Sanjit Kumar, Learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted before this Court after death of the life assured, the petitioner has re-married but even after her remarriage the petitioner would be entitled to receive at least 50% of the proceeds by virtue of her being a class-I legal heir of her deceased husband. Learned counsel has submitted before this Court that earlier when the Hindu Widows’ Re-Marriage Act, 1856 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1856’) was in force, under Section 2 of the said Act in case of re-marriage any right to the property inherited or succeeded from the husband would have ceased and determined as if she had then died, but the Act of 1856 has already been repealed by Act No.24 of 1983 with effect from 31st August, 1983. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cherotte Sugathan (Dead) through LRS. & Ors. Vs. Cherotte Bharathi & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 610: (2008) 2 Supreme 321. to submit that once a right has been vested in the widow in the estate of her husband by dying intestate, the subsequent marriage conducted by the widow would not take away the vested right of her to receive the half of the policy proceeds in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Mahton Vs. Mohammad Elahi & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 Patna 170.

3. It is further submitted that Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 does not vest any beneficial interest in the nominee as the nomination is always subject to the law of succession. In this connection he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. v. Smt. Usha Devi reported in AIR 1984 SC 346=1984 BBCJ 26. Learned counsel has further relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta & Ors. 2010(2) PLJR SC 1(2009) 10 SCC 680: (2009) 6 Supreme 199..

4. The writ application has been opposed by respondent no.5. In her counter affidavit she has admitted that on 22.04.2015 her son had solemnized marriage with the petitioner. It is however contended that her son had never changed the nomination in the policy. The grievance of respondent no.5 is that after death of her son, the petitioner has performed second marriage with another person and is living separately. Some further allegations have been made that the petitioner is torturing respondent no.5 and has taken away all the articles etc. for which the a police case is registered with the Mahila P.S. This Court finds that those are not at all relevant for the purpose of present case.

5. The respondent no.5 has filed an affidavit stating that if the respondent no.5 is allowed to receive the entire death claim, she will keep 50% of the amount in safe fixed deposit subject to result of the case in which the entitlement of the petitioner to receive 50% of the death proceeds may be adjudicated. The contention is that the ent