GPF Nomination in Favour of Mother Invalid After Marriage – Amount to Be Shared with Wife | SC

Case Details: Smt. Bolla Malathi vs. B. Suguna - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 299 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sanjay Karol & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
• Hari Vishnu, Likhi Chand, Advs. & Venkita Subramoniam T.R., AOR for the Petitioner.
• A. Selvin Raja, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AORs, Brijender Chahar, Jagdish Chandra, Bhakti Vardhan Singh & Ms Gayatri Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Deceased was employed in the Defence Accounts Department. At the time of joining service in 2000, he nominated his mother (respondent no. 1) for General Provident Fund (GPF), Central Government Employees Insurance Scheme (CGEIS), and Death-Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG).

After marrying appellant in 2003, he nominated appellant for CGEIS and DCRG but did not alter the GPF nomination. He died in service in 2021. When the appellant applied for the release of accumulated GPF, authorities refused, citing a subsisting GPF nomination in favour of the mother.

The appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that the initial GPF nomination in favour of the mother became invalid upon the deceased acquiring a family and, no valid nomination subsisting at death, directed the release of the GPF in equal shares to the appellant and respondent no. 1.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, proceeded on the basis that the mother continued as a valid sole nominee for GPF, and directed that the GPF amount be paid to her. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court noted that since nomination in favour of respondent no.1 was made with a stipulation that it would become invalid upon subscriber acquiring a family (marriage or otherwise), as such, by function thereof, it became invalid.

The Supreme Court held that, since the deceased had not altered the nomination to comply therewith, the earlier nomination could not be held valid. Therefore, the GPF of the deceased was to be distributed between the appellant and respondent no. 1.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5756 of 2024, dated 11-02-2025 (para 10) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi [1984] 17 Taxman 1 (SC) (para 9)
• Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar [2023] 157 taxmann.com 364/[2024]182 SCL 158 (SC) (para 9)
• Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta 2009 taxmann.com 2095 (SC) (para 9).