The Madras High Court (HC) has ruled that the wife is not entitled for a share in the insured money, if her deceased husband did not contribute towards the premium payment.
In a recent ruling, Justice S Vaidyanathan passed interim order on a petition from G Asha, wife of Ganesh Raja of Veppampattu in Tiruvallur district. In case the deceased husband had not made any contribution towards premium, there is no justification on the wife’s part to seek her share, Justice Vaidyanathan said.
Justice Vaidyanathan sought to know who had paid the insurance premium in its entirety till the demise of Ganesh Raja, whether it was his father or he himself has paid or contributed towards the premium payment.
Till the time the fact as to who had paid the premium to the insurance company and whether any single pie had been contributed by the deceased or not, is known, this court cannot decide the issue relating to the entitlement of the petitioner to claim a share in the maturity amount, the order said.
In case the deceased husband had not made any contribution towards premium, there is no justification on the wife’s part to seek her share, Justice Vaidyanathan said.
“It is no doubt true that wife, mother and children are class-I heirs of a male deceased and not the father. But the heirship will not be considered for this type of contingency, in case the entire contribution is not made by the deceased and the same has been paid only by the father of the deceased. In such circumstances, it is for the father of the deceased to decide to give the money in its entirety or in proportionate to any person, including class-I heirs,” the court order added.
If a deceased had already mentioned the nominee and if that person falls under the category of class-I heir other than father, then there would not be any problem in disbursement of the insurance proceeds.
However, in this case, if the lady’s father-in-law established that only he contributed towards the entire premium by way of bank transfer, (or any other means other than remittance by cash) for the insurance policy in the name of his son, then there is no justification on the part of the petitioner to seek for her share in the amount and she has no case at all, the judge said.
Further, Justice Vaidyanathan also directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to circulate a copy of the order to all its branches situated in Tamil Nadu and collect details of similar cases and produce them before the court on 28th June, the next date of hearing by way of counter.