You have requested our opinion as to whether Jacqueline W~ meets the definition of
                  an unmarried child. The question arises because the Chancery Court apparently did
                  not follow Mississippi law in granting her an annulment. The bill of complaint for
                  annulment was filed eleven months after the date of the marriage and not within the
                  six-month period prescribed by Mississippi law.
               
               The facts indicate that the number holder died on February 3, 1968, and that Jacqueline
                  became entitled to benefits in the same month as a surviving natural child. She was
                  married on January 16, 1980, in Mississippi, and her benefits were terminated January
                  1980.
               
               On December 24, 1980, Jacqueline filed an original bill of complaint for annulment
                  in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. On February 26, 1981, the Chancery Court of said
                  county granted Jacqueline a Final Decree of Annulment. The court found, in pertinent
                  part, that,
               
               "The complainant (Jacqueline) and defendant have been ceremonially married but have
                  not lived or cohabited together and their marriage was never ratified because the
                  defendant, due to physical causes, was incapable of entering into a marriage state
                  and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to have the marriage annulled .... "
               
               On February 26, 1981, Jacqueline's mother filed. a new claim on Jacqueline's behalf
                  for child's benefits to be resumed February 1981, the month of the annulment.
               
               Jacqueline W~ was granted an annulment pursuant to $93-7-3 of the Mississippi Code
                  Ann. (1972) which provides, in pertinent part, that
               
               "A marriage may be annulled for any one of the following causes existing at the time
                  of the marriage ceremony, to wit: (a) Incurable impotency-.... (d) When (in the absence
                  of ratification) either of the parties to a marriage ... shall be incapable from physical
                  causes of entering into the marriage state ... the marriage shall be void from the
                  time its nullity shall be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction. ... Suits
                  for annulment under subsections (d) and (e) shall be brought within six months after
                  the ground therefore is or should be discovered, and not thereafter."
               
               It is apparent from the language of the court decree that the ground for Jacqueline's
                  action for annulment was §93-7-3(d). The statutory time limit imposed by ~93-7-3 was
                  considered in the Mississippi case of Haralson v. Haralson, 362 So.2d 191 (1978), wherein the court wrote that, "the statute (93-7-3) is plain
                  and unambiguous. It provides a specific time limit for bringing actions for annulment
                  for the causes set forth in subsections (b), (d) and (e)." That court held that inasmuch
                  as an action to have a marriage annulled for lack of mental capacity was not instituted
                  within six months after the marriage, it was barred by Section 93-7-3.
               
               We reach a similar conclusion in this claim. Jacqueline's action to have her marriage
                  annulled was not instituted within the statutory time limit and it therefore was barred
                  by Section 93-7-3.
               
               It is proper for the Secretary to make this determination of Mississippi law notwithstanding
                  the Final Decree of Annulment granted by the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County,
                  Mississippi. As stated in Cain v. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 377 F.2d 55 (4th Cir. 1967), where,
               
               "the Supreme Court (of the State) has not had .- occasion to declare the law, the
                  Secretary may follow the opinion of a nisi prius court; but if he believes its decision
                  to be in conflict with what the Supreme Court 'would find' were the point presented
                  to it, he may disregard that lower court's decision. Indeed, it is well settled that
                  the Secretary is not bound by ex parte decisions made in State courts. Roche v. Celebrezze, 358 F.2d 119 (2nd Cir. 1966); Pitts v. Hamrick, 228 F.2d 486 (4th Cir. 1955); Ramsey v. United States, 61 F.2d 444 (5th Cir. 1932)."
               
               Thus, it is our opinion that the annulment granted to Jacqueline is not a valid termination
                  of her marriage. Jacqueline W~ filed suit eleven months after the date of marriage
                  and therefore the action to have her marriage annulled was barred by §93-7-3 of the
                  Mississippi Code Ann. (1972).