Background of Case: 

The deceased government employee had nominated his mother for GPF benefits before marriage. After his marriage in 2003, he did not update the nomination and passed away in 2021. The wife claimed equal share in GPF as a class-I legal heir. The Tribunal directed equal distribution, but the High Court disagreed. The matter reached the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decision: Key Takeaways

✔ Marriage renders earlier nomination invalid automatically

✔ Nominee is only an authorized recipient, not the absolute owner

✔ If nomination is invalid → GPF must be shared among all eligible family members

✔ Wife and mother both entitled to 50% share each

✔ Tribunal order upheld; High Court order set aside

This ruling reinforces that legal heirs cannot be deprived of their rightful share simply due to non-updated nominations.

Nominee ≠ Owner of Funds

The Court relied on earlier precedents like:

• Sarbati Devi vs. Usha Devi—Nominee “only receives the amount”

• Shakti Yezdani vs. J.S. Salgaonkar—Nomination does not override succession

📌 Nominee is only a trustee / collecting agent for legal heirs.