Succession
Satish
(Querist) 17 May 2009
This query is : Resolved
Husband died leaving two wives. Husband was in service at the time of death and nomination was in favour of second wife in official records. Whether the succession would be granted in favour of first or second wife? What is legal position.
Pls suggest.
A V Vishal
(Expert) 17 May 2009
What religion does your client belongs to
Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar
(Expert) 17 May 2009
If his second marriage was invalid,succession will be granted in favour of the first wife irrespective of nomination.
A V Vishal
(Expert) 18 May 2009
Dear Learned members and Dr Tripathiji,
Here is a recent SC judgement in a similar case.
Vidyadhari & others v Sukhrana Bai & others - Date of Judgment: 22nd Jan 2008
Case No.: Appeal (civil) 575 of 2008 - Bench: S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar
Judgment: (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6758 of 2007)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.- Leave granted
CA common judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, disposing of two Miscellaneous Appeals is in challenge before us. The appeals were filed by one Smt.Sukhrana Bai claiming herself to be the widow of one Sheetaldeen. Sheetaldeen was working as a CCM Helper in Mines P.K.1 of the Western Coalfields at Pathakheda and died on 9.5.1993 while in service. Two separate applications came to be filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for obtaining succession certificate with respect to the movable properties of deceased Sheetaldeen, one of them was filed by Vidhyadhari registered as Succession Case No.3/96 while the other came to be filed by Sukhrana Bai which was registered as Succession Case No.10/95. Both the cases were joined and tried together by the Trial Court which allowed the application filed by Vidhyadhari (SC No.3/96) and dismissed the one filed by Sukhrana Bai (SC No.10/95). Sukhrana Bai, therefore, filed two Miscellaneous Appeals being MA 33/1998 and MA 43/1998 which came to be allowed by the High Court in favour of Sukhrana Bai. Vidhyadhari, therefore, is before us in this appeal. Before we proceed with the matter, a factual background would be necessary.
3. Admittedly, Sukhrana Bai was the first wife of Sheetaldeen, while during the subsistence of this marriage, Sheetaldeen got married with Vidhyadhari. Two sons and two daughters were born to Vidhyadhari, they being Smt.Savitri, Naresh @ Ramesh, Ms.Chanda @ Durga and Baliram, while Sukhrana Bai does not have any children.
4. Vidhyadhari in her application before the Trial Court (SC No.3/96), besides herself, disclosed the names of her children as the legal heirs of Sheetaldeen. It was also revealed that deceased Sheetaldeen had nominated her for receiving amounts under the Provident Fund, Family Pension Scheme and Coal Mines Deposits Life Scheme. She also disclosed that she has received a sum of Rs.45036/- towards gratuity amount of the deceased from the employer of Sheetaldeen, i.e., Western Coalfields Ltd. She, therefore, claimed the Succession Certificate on the basis of the nominations besides her marriage with Sheetaldeen.
5. As stated above, both the Succession Cases came to be consolidated and tried together. In SC No.10/95, filed by Sukhrana Bai, Vidhyadhari raised an objection that Sukhrana Bai was not the heir of deceased Sheetaldeen and though Sheetaldeen initially nominated Vidhyadhari to receive the dues after his death as per Form A, subsequently he cancelled that nomination and filled in a second Form A in which he had nominated Smt.Vidhyadhari and in description of his family members he had indicated her to be the wife, one Naresh as his son and Ms.Chanda @ Durga as his daughter. It was also pointed out that Sukhrana Bai had not claimed any dues from the office of Sheetaldeen. WCL which is a party, contended that the non-applicant had no knowledge about the valid marriage between the deceased and Sukhrana Bai and it was also admitted that Sheetaldeen had nominated Vidhyadhari to receive the total amount and had registered her as his nominee. Following issues came to be framed by the Trial Court:
(1) Whether the legal widow of the deceased Sheetaldeen is the applicant Smt.Sukhrana of Case No.10/95 or Vidhyadhari of Case No.3/96?
(2) Whether Smt.Savitri, Naresh aias Ramesh, Ms.Chanda alias Durga and Baliram, as mentioned in the application of Case No.3/96 are the children of applicant Vidhyadhari, sired by deceased Sheetaldeen?
(3) If yes, whether they are the heirs of deceased Sheetaldeen?
(4) For receiving the amount due to deceased Sheetaldeen, issuance of Succession
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 18 May 2009
In HIndu law second marriage is in valid. So second wife is not the successor of the deceased Husband, She is the nominee, her duty is only distribute the propoerties of the deceased to the legal heirs of the deceased, nominee cannot claim anything.
SANJAY DIXIT
(Expert) 18 May 2009
Relevant judgment by Mr vishal.
The citation is--
Vidhyadhari and others
vs.
Sukhrana bai and others
(2008) 2 Supreme court Cases 238
Satish
(Querist) 18 May 2009
Thanks to all.
Prakash Yedhula
(Expert) 24 May 2009
Summary of the judgment referred above is as follows:
Children born of second marriage are entitled to a share in the property of their father though the second marriage itself is void, the Supreme Court has held.
If a person marries a second time during the subsistence of his first marriage, children born of the second marriage will still be legitimate, said a Bench consisting of Justices S.B. Sinha and V.S. Sirpurkar.
Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Sirpurkar said the law was clear that the second wife who was cited as the nominee by her husband to claim the benefits arising out of his employment could claim succession certificate in favour of her children. However, she would not be legally entitled to receive a share from her husband’s property.
In the instant case, Sukhrana Bai deserted Sheetaldeen soon after their marriage. Thereafter Sheetaldeen married Vidyadhari and four children were born to them. After his death, Vidyadhari, who was his nominee, received pension and other benefits due to Sheetaldeen.
However, both Sukhrana Bai and Vidyadhari filed applications claiming the succession certificate for his movable property. The trial court decreed in favour of the second wife. But on appeal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed the finding and granted the certificate in favour of the first wife.
Allowing Vidyadhari’s appeal against this judgment, the apex court said she continued to live with Sheetaldeen as his wife for a long time. She enjoyed the confidence of Sheetaldeen, who nominated her for his Provident Fund, life cover scheme, pension, life insurance and other dues. Under such circumstances, she was preferable to the legally wedded wife, Sukharna Bai, who never stayed with Sheetaldeen as his wife but went to the extent of claiming the succession certificate to the exclusion of Sheetaldeen’s legal heirs.
In granting the certificate, the court had to use its discretion where rival claims, as in this case, were made for the property of the deceased, the Bench pointed out.
The High Court ought to have taken these crucial circumstances into consideration.
“Though we agree with the High Court that Mrs. Bai was the only legitimate wife yet, we would choose to grant the certificate in favour of Mrs. Vidyadhari, who was his nominee and mother of his four children.”
Besides the four children of Vidyadhari, Sukharna Bai would receive a one-fifth share of the property. Vidyadhari was not entitled to any share for herself and that she would have to protect Sukharna Bai’s share and hand it over to her, the Bench said.
