Report No. 66
8.26. Other cases.-
In a Nagpur case1, there was in the policy no statement that it was intended for the benefit of his wife or children. However, it was stated in the policy that the proposal and declaration of insurance should be the basis of the assurance, and, in the proposal form, where them was a question "What is he object of the proposed assurance", the assured wrote, "family provision". The Nagpur High Court held that the words used-"family provision"-were very vague, and there was no indication that the assured intended that his wife and children should get the whole interest in the policy. In the circumstances, the Court held that even assuming that the statement in the proposal form could be said to be a statement expressed on the face of the policy-which it doubted-this statement was no sufficient to bring the policy within the ambit of section 6 of the Act, as it was vague.
1. Rabibai v. Ratanlal, AIR 1938 Nag 321.
8.27. In one Sind case1, it was held that before section 6(1) of the Married Women's Property Act can apply, the insurance policy must be "expressed on the face of it to be for the benefit of his wife". In this case, it was an admitted position that the policy of insurance was not produced before the trial court. But the appellant widow had received the sum due under the policy from the Insurance Company, and the Court assumed that the policy had been surrendered by her to the Company. The question arose whether the insurance money would have to be deducted from the appellant's share in partition. It was held that:
"If the appellant then wished to rely upon section 6(1), Married Women's Property Act, she should have called for the surrendered policy to satisfy the Court that it was expressed on the face of it to be for her benefit. A mere assignment of a policy in favour of the wife does not bring the policy within the terms of section 6(1), Married Women's Property Act."
From the evidence of the appellant, the Court said that the policy had been assigned to her by her husband two years before his death, and later, that he had taken out policy in her name. In these circumstances, the Court held that the policy did not come within section 6(1). Therefore, it was held that the insurance money would have to be deducted from the appellant's share in the partition.
1. Manibai v. Bhirnji Lalaji, AIR 1946 Sind 171, following Shamdas v. Savitribai, AIR 1937 Sind 181.