.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2007 Smt.Laxmi Suresh Raghatwan. ..Petitioner. Versus Syndicate Bank. ..Respondent. .. J.S.Lanjekar, Adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.P.K.Rele, Sr.Counsel with V.N.Tayade i/b. Piyush Shah, Adv. for Respondent. .. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has approached to this Court seeking terminal benefits payable to the dependants of the deceased employee Mr.Suresh Baburao Raghatwan. So far as the payment of terminal benefits are concerned, Mr.Rele the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank stated that the terminal benefits are payable in accordance with the scheme and as per law and the respondent Bank is ready to pay the same. However, the Bank has not paid those dues to the .{2}. petitioner because from the record of the bank and the correspondence of the deceased with the Bank, the Bank have realised that the deceased had a first wife having name "Nanda" and the deceased have stated the name of the first wife as "Nanda S. Raghatwan" and since the Bank has found that apart from the petitioner first wife is also heir, the Bank has not made payment to the petitioner. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the Bank informed to the petitioner that the petitioner shall produce police report/court order declaring that the first wife of Mr.Suresh Baburao Raghatwan is missing for not less than seven years and that she is legally dead; and that the petitioner shall also produce the claim in Form No.OG-99 along with the details stated in paragraph No.1. This letter has not been complied with by the petitioner, therefore, the respondent Bank has not released the terminal benefits. What we find is that the Bank is justified in not making the payment of terminal benefits in the facts and circumstances when the record of the Bank shows that there is a first wife of the deceased who can claim the amount. At this stage it is not known whether the second marriage with the petitioner was .{3}. contracted by the deceased after taking divorce from the first wife and/or after the death of first wife. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to clarify this position and show that there was either divorce of the first wife and the deceased and/or the first wife is dead and thereafter the marriage of the petitioner was celebrated. Unless the petitioner shows that she is the legally wedded wife and legal heir of the deceased and except the petitioner there are no legal heirs, by producing appropriate orders as desired by the Bank, the Bank will be justified in not releasing the amount in favour of the petitioner. We have asked the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner whether the petitioner is ready to comply with all these things, the learned Counsel instead wants this Court to decide the heirship. Infact the issue of heirship has to be decided by the Civil Court by filing appropriate proceedings. Under these circumstances, we refrain to entertain the present Petition. Petition is hereby rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.]