Wife not entitled to insurance money if not contributed by deceased husband, says Madras High Court

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, the judge said

The wife will not be entitled to any legal share in the insured money, if her deceased husband did not contribute any premium, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Justice S Vaidyanathan gave the ruling while passing interim orders on a petition from G Asha, wife of Ganesh Raja of Veppampattu in Tiruvallur district, recently.

The judge said he wants to know as to who had paid the premium in its entirety till the demise of Ganesh Raja, either her father-in-law or her deceased husband himself.

Till 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 judge 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, he 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 taken into account 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 judge added.

It is needless to state here that if a deceased has already declared the nominee and if that person falls under the category of class-I heir other than father, then there may not be any problem in disbursement of the maturity amount.

In the present case, in case the woman's father-in-law is able to establish that only he paid the entire premium by way of NEFT/RTGS /Transfer, other than remittance by cash 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.

He then directed the LIC to circulate this order to all its branches situated in Tamil Nadu and collect details of similar cases and produce them before the court on June 28, the next date of hearing by way of counter.