ORDER :

1. The husband of the petitioner, before and after marriage, had taken six life insurance policies from respondents 1, 5 and 6. The details of these policies are as follows:

1. Respondent No.3, vide Policy No. 845828411 on 28.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.

2. Respondent No.4, vide Policy No.633991139 on 28.08.2019, for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No.5, vide Policy No.20980126 on 03.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.5, vide Police No.18273437 dated 27.02.2016 for a sum of Rs9,64,970/-.

5. Respondent No.5, vide Policy No.18991940 dated 06.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.7,71,010/-.

6. Respondent No.6, vide Policy No.266676659, on 03.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,99,996/-.

2. The 7th respondent, who is the father of the deceased husband of the petitioner, was registered as nominee in respect of the life insurance policies shown in Sl.Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6. The 8th respondent, who is the mother of the deceased husband of the petitioner, was nominated in the other policies. The husband of the petitioner was murdered on 18.08.2021 in Vijayawada and investigation in the said murder is being carried out in Crime No.555 of 2021.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the complaint that respondents 7 and 8 are seeking to take away the sum assured being paid out by the insurance companies, without giving her share of the said compensation. The petitioner contends that she is entitled to a share of the sum assured, under the said life insurance policies, as she is a Class-I heir of her late husband along with respondents 7 and 8 and would be entitled for her share in the sum assured being paid out by the insurance companies. She also contends that her husband had executed a Will bequeathing the sum assured in these policies to her and she is the sole person who is entitled to the entire sum assured.

4. The petitioner contends that respondents 7 and 8 have already withdrawn the sum assured under the policies mentioned at Sl.Nos.3 and 4, depriving her from the benefits accrued to her as a Class-I legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the respondents 1, 5 and 6 to pay out, her share, of the sum assured to her.

5. The petitioner contends that Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, which provides for a nominee to receive the sum assured, has been interpreted by various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court to mean that the nominee is only an agent who shall receive the sum assured on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased person and as such respondents 7 and 8 are required to deliver her share after receiving the sum from the insurance companies and that, in the alternative, the insurance companies should pay out her share of the sum assured directly to her.

6. Respondents 7 and 8 have filed a counter affidavit contending that by virtue of the Amendment Act, 2015, the law on the subject has changed and respondents 7 and 8 are entitled to the entire sum assured on account of being nominated to receive the said amounts by their son.

7. During the pendency of the writ petition, I.A.No.2 of 2022 has been filed by the bank of Baroda contending that the late husband of the petitioner is due a sum of approximately Rs.20 crores as on 21.12.2021 and that the sum assured that will be paid out by the respondent-insurance companies should be attached and paid to the Bank.

8. Similarly, I.A. No.1 of 2022 has been filed by a private individual claiming that the deceased husband of the petitioner owes an amount of Rs.5,86,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 25% per annum and a suit for recovery has also been filed in O.S.No.48 of 2022 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The case of the implead petitioner is also that the said amount has to be attached and paid out to the implead petitioner.

9. Both these implead petitions have been dismissed by way of a separate order today.

10. Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, pr