Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant Smti Lalliani is the first wife if deceased Lalbiaktluanga who died on 27.8.92. The respondent is the second wife of the said deceased Lalbiaktluanga while serving in Madras Regiment late Lalbiaktluanga had nominated the appellant to receive all death benefits in the event of his death. The controversy between the two wives left by him is directly related to the service benefits of late Lalbiaktluanga. Late Lalbiaktluanga and the appellant Lalliani were married in 1982. They have three children. Two are sons and one is a daughter. At the moment the elder boy is living with the step mother, the second wife of Lalbiaktluanga. The second son and the girl are with the appellant. The second wife Smti Lalhliapi also has a daughter out of her union with late Lalbiaktluanga. The wives are now looking after two children each. 2. Sometime in 1985 deceased Lalbiaktluanga and the appellant were separated. Again they came together in 1987. However, this also did not last long. Marriage was broken in 1988. Thereafter said Lalbiaktluanga and the respondent were married on 26.1.1990. The respondent (second wife) made an application in the Court below to issue heir ship certificate to receive the family pension benefit of late Lalbiaktluanga. The Court held that the respondent being “the legal and present wife” would get the benefit of the family pension and that the appellant being “an ex wife only has no right to claim the benefit of pension”. The said order was issued on 1.11.1993 in HC No.237 of 1993. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Council Court, Aizawl. The said appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.21 of 1993. After hearing the parties the said appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 19.9.1994. The appellate Court also upheld the finding of the Subordinate Court that the respondent is the legal and rightful claimant and as such she should be given monthly pension benefit of her late husband. The said appellate order was passed in the face of its finding recorded as follows : “First wife appellant, Lalliani had three children with the deceased, and she has nothing to support her children .She is not an educated person, and she has no job. The said appellate order was passed in the face of its finding recorded as follows : “First wife appellant, Lalliani had three children with the deceased, and she has nothing to support her children .She is not an educated person, and she has no job. She supported her children by sitting on the road-side selling sweets and tobacco. The death gratuity of the deceased Lalbiaktluanga was registered in the name of Smti Lalliani as beneficiary, and this was not cancelled by the deceased during his second marriage is subsisted to the respondent Lalhiapi. This fact is also not denied by the appellant Lalhiapi, and the fact is also confirmed by the letter dated 18.9.93 of die Record Officer of the Madras Regiment Wellington (Nilgiris). On the other hand the second wife of the deceased respondent Lalhiapi is a Govt employee working in the Civil Secretariat of Mizoram Government as Telephone Operator, having pay scale of Rs. 1,200 - 2,000/-. Besides, she has only one child with the deceased, which will be not too difficult to support for her.” 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that whereas there is a clear finding that the Record Officer had duly communicated to the Court during the pendency of the case that the appellant was duly nominated to receive the pension benefits of deceased Lalbiaktluanga, the lower appellate Court had wrongly held that the respondent would be entitled to such benefits. 4. On 28th April, 1994, the Judicial Officer, District Council Court wrote a letter to the Record Officer to sent to the Court “the nominated persons of the lateNo.4348104 Nk/Ts Lalbiaktluanga in respect of his death gratuity and family pension, as the same is being claimed by both his wives Smti Lalliani and Smti Lalhliapi.” In response to the above letter the Record Officer, one Capt. DV Jolly sent relevant information to the Judicial Officer by his letter dated 12th May, 1994. Para 2 of the letter is as under : “2. As per nomination executed by the deceased during his life time Smti Lalliani (first wife) is the nominated heir to receive all the death benefits in the event of his death. Photostate copies of the following nominations are forwarded herewith as desired please : (a) Will form (b) Nomination for death-cum-Retirement gratuity. (c) Nomination for special family pension. (d) Nomination for Army group Insurance fund. Photostate copies of the following nominations are forwarded herewith as desired please : (a) Will form (b) Nomination for death-cum-Retirement gratuity. (c) Nomination for special family pension. (d) Nomination for Army group Insurance fund. (e) Declaration of changes in kindred roll.” 5. Another letter was addressed to the appellant by the Record Officer on 18 September, 1993 regarding payment of death benefits under Extended Army Group Insurance Scheme. Obviously it was written in response to the appellant's letter dated 23rd August, 1993. Para 2 of the said letter states : “You are advised to forward original 'Extended Army Group Insurance certificate' (bearing No.60527/4348104/91, B186327 dated 14th Feb 91) forwarded to your husband vide this office letter No.4348104/AGIF/7/NE-3 dated 28th Feb 91, duly completed together with original copy of death certificate of your husband direct to Army Group Insurance Fund, AGI Bhawan, Rao Tula Ram Marg, Post Bag No. 14, PO-Vasant Vihar, New Dehi-110057 to get Rs.50,000/- towards death benefits under Extended Army Group Insurance Scheme.” 6. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that at the relevant time the said documents were not with the appellant and she was not able to forward those documents to the Record Officer. In view of this obviously the said sum of Rs.50,000/- has not been released by the Army so far. Be that as it may requiring the question as to who is entitled to receive the benefits contained in the letter of the Record Officer aforesaid, in my view there should be no doubt in anybody's mind. The nomination made by the deceased Lalbiaktluanga is not disputed, nor is the fact that this nomination had not been cancelled during the life time of said Lalbiaktluanga has been disputed. If that is so, it appears the nominee who in the present case is clearly the appellant, is entitled to any benefits in terms of the nomination made by late Lalbiaktluanga. 7. Mr. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it will be for the ends of justice to decide the dispute not only from legal point of view, but from other considerations including the fact that both the appellant and the respondent were at one time or the other legally married wives. Therefore, it is submitted that it will be equitable if pensionary and other service benefits of late Lalbiaktluanga could be shared between the two wives. Therefore, it is submitted that it will be equitable if pensionary and other service benefits of late Lalbiaktluanga could be shared between the two wives. According to the learned counsel the Court below have decided the case fairly and as such this Court may not interfere with the decision made by the two Courts below. 8.1 have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent. I do not know if there is any other benefit apart from the benefits mentioned in the letter of the Record Officer. However, as far as the benefits for which the appellant was nominated during the tenure of his employment in Madras Regiment which was never cancelled by him during his life time, it appears such benefits which were accrued to the appellant because of the Will which the deceased rightfully exercised, in my view, cannot be taken away after the man' is dead and gone, for to do so in my view, will betray the Will left by that man. In other words, I hold that the appellant being the nominee is entitled to the benefits for which nomination was made by Shri Lalbiaktluanga during his life time. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In other words, the appellant shall stand entitled to receive benefits in terms of the nomination made by late Lalbiaktluanga as contained in letter dated 12th May, 1994 of the Record Officer, Madras Regiment. In this view of the matter the impugned orders stand set aside. 10. On 21.3.95, this Court had directed that payment of pension of late Lalbiaktluanga to the respondent shall be suspended until further orders. It is stated that since then pension in respect of the deceased Lalbiaktluanga has not been drawn either by the appellant or by the respondent. Till then, however, respondent had been drawing monthlly pension by virtue of the orders passed by the Courts below. In my view, it would be equitablle to see that whatever pension amount had been drawn by the respondent before this Court had suspended such payment by order dated 21.3.95 shall not be refunded. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.