Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

priyanka   28 November 2017

Nomination Before Marriage

Respected sir/ madam, I am a widow women. My late husband worked in a reputed company of gurgaon, After my husband death, I applied for death claims, funds and insurance of my late husband in his company, but company told me that before marriage your husband mentioned the name of your mother in law in nominee for claims and funds, company told me that After marriage your husband did not changed the nominee from (mother to wife), And now just because of that reason my mother in law also demanding 50% share from death claims, funds and insurance. Sir, i just want to ask that nomination made before marriage is valid or invalid, because my husband made it before marriage, sir, someone told me that nomination made before marriage is invalid, because after marriage nominee will automatically becomes wife because she is the legal hier, so she is the only one to entitle all death , claims and funds of her husband, and mother inlaw has no right of demanding 50% share in death, claims and funds. Sir, i am in a extreme pain, please guide me, what is right and what is wrong because ((my mother in law is taking advantage just because her name mentioned in nominee, my mother in law was a government employer, and her husband was also a government employer but expired few years back, when her husband expired , she had taken all funds, claims and insurance of her late husband, now she is taking 2 government pensions, 1) her husband government pension , 2) her own government pension, and living happily in her husband house)) , Than also she is demanding 50% share in my husband company funds, claims and insurance , sir plz guide me , what should i do, where will i go, plz tell me that nomination made before marriage is valid or invalid, please guide me, i will be very thankful to you. Thank you Priyanka sharma Email id :- priyanka_sharma1988@yahoo.com


Learning

 54 Replies

P. Venu (Advocate)     28 November 2017

The same query was posted before and already, suggestions have been offered.

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     28 November 2017

Nominations made for life insurance and provident fund automatically lapse on marriage of the person. After marriage only wife can be nominee.

G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.)     28 November 2017

Nomination is different from succession.  The authorities are discharged from their liability by paying to the nominee.  The legal heirs should approach through court for their legitimate share as apparent legal heirs.  Because some one is nominated, he can absolutely own the proceeds of deceased but subject to such claims from Class I legal heirs, and they represent collective interest and can not claim ownership.   Contact a local advocate, instead of posting the same query again and again, without taking any further action, as there is limitation period for every such step.

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     28 November 2017

Nomination is different from succession. Still there are laws as to who can be nominated and who cannot. The testator is not free to nominate anyone as likes. A nominee is not a mere administrator.


(Guest)

@ Dr. MPS Ramani,

With reference to your reply, "Nominations made for life insurance and provident fund automatically lapse on marriage of the person. After marriage only wife can be nominee, " probably, you have the need to refresh your knowledge about nomination before and after marriage in the case of LIC and PF.

 

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     01 December 2017

@ Jigyasu

I may be outdated. I shall be thankful if you enlighten me.


(Guest)
Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
@ Jigyasu

I may be outdated. I shall be thankful if you enlighten me.

 

@ Dr. MPS Ramani,

Nice, probably you want to test my knowledge! OK. Please rest assured, I do not touch any query or reply thereto unless I am sure about the law/ Ruling position pertaining to that.

Since I treat the query of the querist as a vague having doubt about problem having any reality, instead of providing answer to her academic query, I have replied your query through PM. Please check that.

 

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     03 December 2017

I was sincere and meant what I wrote. I came across this in the course of helping a young relative, who was widowed soon after marriage. I said I may be outdated because the incident happened years back, but not as far back as 1938. If I have to reply now I will have to read your PM and may be I will have to do research.


(Guest)

@ Dr. MPS Ramani,

I have not asked you to go through any document pertaining to the year 1938, but the completely substituted provision as amended by the latest document of 2015.. So, the purpose of your message is not understood. The message was sent only in response to your request for updating you, not unduly at my own.

May be you are too busy not to have found a time to read my very short message worth readable within 5 to 10 seconds, as sent two days back. Anyway, you are at liberty to read or not and respond or not my message, dated 01.012.2017.

 

G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.)     03 December 2017

A very good  and decent way of dealing with disputed replies.  Sending PMs and not showing arrogance and attitude in posts reflects respect towards others.  Congratulations for both, in attempts to finding out guidance for genuine queries in a decent and befitting manner as experts in a good forum.


(Guest)

@ G L N Prasad,

Thank you very much for appreciation of my way of dealing with the disputed replies.

 

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     04 January 2018

This fellow nick named "JIGYASU" claims himself as a "Legal Analyst"
For his various posts, it seems that he is here only to Criticise & Ridicule other expert participants.  
This fellow nick named "JIGYASU" never provides any answers to any queriest and only keeps on twisting his perverted words.  
BEWARE OF HIS FRUSTRATION & NEFARIOUS HABIT.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.)     04 January 2018

A member comes to the forum only for receiving guidance, and by the time he approaches the forrum, most of them might have got a fair idea and confused on further action.  Member who posts the queries want precise, upto the point guidance and ignores other not relevant comments.  Experts rarely visit the forum and reply, but those who are having knowledge may provide guidance with such citations, that may be helpful.  Forum is not ultimate and it is the local Advocate that has to be take care of his clients.  Litigants that deal with Advocates from moffusil and feel that their Advocate is not well acquainted mostly visit the forum.  At the end it is valuable  guidance that matters and not the person behind..  Those who provide guidance for others are always valuable and most important as their intentions to help members through forum  deserves appreciation.   There is no question of raising personal issues and arguments other than the subject and issues as this forum is decent with professionals.


(Guest)

@ Shri GLN Prasad,

Well pointed out by you. But when in case of some fake experts and their touts someone points out to them about their faulty & misleading advice with their much hyped about their half baked knowledge or infested with ego, they often feel jealousy against other knowledgeable persons, who dared to alert the querist about wrong and misleading advice. So, instead of making review of their own knowledge, they often talk in the language & tone of the fellow, like Mr. Hemant Agarwal.

The irony is, Mr. Hemant Agarwal has not tried to demonstrate his knbowledge to prove me wrong by rendering a law based advice for the querist, if any, but has specially appeared on the forum just to criticize me in person. 

Instead of appearing specifcially to raise false alrm, Mr. Hemant Agarwal should better have understoof that if a person can question about the wrong pereptions, assumptions or presumptions of some one else, he often knows more than the person whose wrong advice is questioned. Even in this case, Mr. Hemant Agarwal could better have justified himself by giving appropriate advice to the querist or scuttling down my views duly supported by his legal knowledge, rather than raising a false alarm without any of his contribution as per the provisions of law. THAT CLEARLY REVEALS ABIOUT HIS DELIBERATE INTENTION TO TARNISH MY IMAGE. So, it is clear that he is bogged down with frustration due to his own half baked knowledge, as he never came forward with appropriate section of some relevant law when questioned about his presumption about a nominee to be merely a trustee of the legal heirs. So, his present post is merely a case of his jealousy against me, being superior to his knowledge on property laws.

SO, YOU CAN VERY WELL JUDGE, WHO IS FRUSTRATED OR INFESTED WITH NEFARIOUS HABIT, Mr. Hemant Agarwal or Mr. Jigyasu (me)?


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register