Report No. 82
4.3. Case law on Provident Funds Act.-
A few rulings under the Provident Funds Act, 1925 may be cited.1 In a Calcutta case,2 a subscriber had nominated his wife as the sole nominee. Subsequently, he took a second wife who bore him two sons. No fresh nominations were made. It was held that as between the first wife and sons of the second wife, the former was absolutely entitled to the money standing to the subscriber at his death.
In a Madras3 case, it was held that the Provident Fund Rules make no restriction with regard to persons in whose favour a declaration of nomination may be made. The depositor had made a declaration nominating a lady as his nominee. The lady claimed the deposit on his death as the widow of the depositor . It was held that she was entitled to it in preference to the son of the depositor, even though it was found that she was not legally married to the depositor.
1. For the text of section 6, Provident Funds Act, see para. 4.2, supra.
2. Keshab Lal v. lvrani Sudra, AIR 1947 Cal 176.
3. Likshmanan v. Sudrarnanayam, AIR 1939 Mad 489.