married women left and returned 30 years back

The question here is not who was the real wife and who was not. Under the amended insurance act the insured amount should go to the nominee and not to the legal heir. Hence even if the wife was the legal heir she would not be entitled for the amount.

In one case  son made  widow mother as nominee at that time he was unmarried but at the time of  his death he was married and children's were their but he did not changed nominee ,his mother wife and children s all are 1st class heirs and got  equal share  unless he has made will infavour of mother she cannot claim  entire amount in name of nominee .nominee is only trusted man .

@Shashi Dhara

When did the event happen, after or before 2015?  The principle in the case of life insurance is that the insured nominates the person that has to be provided for in the event of his death. It need not always be an heir. If a person has a family comprising wife and say 2 sons and no parents. Wife and 2 sons are the heirs. One of the sons is an adult earning for himself.. If the insured had nominated his wife, she will ger the insurance amount. In the case cited by you the situation has changed after the policy was taken and others had become dependants of the insured and apparently there was a lapse on the part of the insured. He did not change the nomination after his marriage. The insurance act also says that nominations made before the marriage of the insured lapse after his marraige.  A good lawyer does not take judgments as gospels. He looks into the merits of each case.

In the present case the Insurance Act 2015 favours the second wife. Narration of the case is not sufficient to look into the merits of the case. The outcome will depend on how the lawyers argue and present the case.. 

Madam,

          Leagal heir alwayas supersedes over nominee.

"Legal heir always supersedes over nominee."

It is not law. There is no law which says so.  It is a creation of judges.  Law making is the prerogative of the Parliament . Parliament Acts will supercede judgments unless the judges can show that a law is derogatory of another law of the Parliament or of the Constitution. Show me the law or section of an Act that says  "Legal heir  supersedes over nominee."  This is a challenge.

Nominee is only trusted person ,he has right to take money but he cannot  spend it as per his wish ,he cannot deny the real title of legal successor ,so he has to hand over   it real  heirs  so the person has real love and affection over nominee he has to draft will in favour of nominee ,if nominee is also one of the successor then he has to retain his share and has to hand over , for other lrs their share as per law.

@ Shashi Dhara

What you say are only derivations, explanations and conclusions given by judges to support their judgements. Parliament is the ultimate authority in the matter.  Show me a law that says legal heir is superior to a nominee. There is no law.  Judgments in the case of insurance law have been nullified by the Insurance Law Amendment 2015.  My challenge is still open.