1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2862 OF 2008 Rajesaheb S/o Karbhari Kupkar ... Petitioner. Versus Smt.Rajkanya Haridas Kupkar, and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.M.Maney, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 10.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is father of deceased Haridas. The Respondents are widow and minor 2 daughter of deceased Haridas. Haridas had taken life Insurance Policy during his life time and had nominated the petitioner for receiving of the amount in case of his death. The petitioner obtained the said amount after death of Haridas being nominee of the Insurance Policy. The Respondents filed a suit against him for recovery of the amount to the extent of their shares being successors of deceased Haridas. The suit came to be decreed exparte as the petitioner remained absent. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree and also challenged territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Osmanabad. He also prayed for interim stay to the execution of the decree which was sought by the Respondents. The learned Civil Judge rejected his application and hence, he has filed the instant Writ Petition. 3. It is well settled that mere nomination made in the L.I.C. Policy does not disentitle the successor/s from claiming the right by way of succession to the amount for which the Insurance Cover is available. The nomination is merely for 3 the purpose of identification of the person to whom the amount is payable without hassles. Needless to say, the Respondents were entitled to receive their due share out of the amount payable on account of realisation of the insurance contract. There is no prima facie case made out by the petitioner so as to seek interim stay. The widow and the minor daughter of deceased Haridas can not be deprived of their legal dues. The petitioner remained absent at the trial and, therefore, invited exparte decree. The subsequent challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court would hardly give him any ground to resist the money decree. It is well settled that money decree can not be stayed without there being substantial reason and more particuarly in the proceedings like the present one. The Respondents are successors and are therefore, prima facie entitled to receive their due share out of the amount paid to the petitioner by the LIC Office. The amount of their share with the petitioner will have to be treated as deposit with him. Under the circumstances, there is no serious infirmity or perversity in the impugned 4 order. The petition is destitute of substance and as such is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp286208