The Hindu : National : Second wife’s children, not herself, entitled to property: apex court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Jan 27, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Second wife’s children, not herself, entitled to property: apex court

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi: 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.

Claim by two wives

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.

Appeal allowed

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.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National