Madras High Court
A.Manohar vs The Senior Manager on 26 November, 2025
Author: G. Jayachandran
Bench: G. Jayachandran
A.S.No.1159 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
A.S.No.1159 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.28787 of 2025
A.Manohar ... Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. The Senior Manager, LIC of India,
City Branch, Chennai – 600 006,
No.15/88, II Floor, South Indian Co-op Building,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2. Mrs.Geethalakshmi ... Respondent(s)
Prayer: Appeal Suit Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the order for Decree & Judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed
in O.S.No.93 of 2021 on the file of VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.R.Harinath
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
A.S.No.1159 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)
The appellant, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit, is before this
Court by way of an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The short point involved in this matter is that, in the dispute between the
husband and wife, a divorce petition filed by the husband was dismissed and his
appeal is pending. Meanwhile, the husband filed a suit before the Family Court
seeking a declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the disbursement of
the life insurance policy subscribed by his wife, which had matured. The
defendants are the Senior Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
(hereinafter referred to as 'the LIC' for short) and his wife, Mrs. Geetha Lakshmi.
The Trial Court, taking note of the proceedings between the parties, and after
considering the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, dismissed the suit holding
that the plaintiff is not entitled to a declaration or to receive the policy amount of
Rs.75,000/- from LIC and is also not entitled to any injunction restraining LIC
from crediting the amount under Policy No. 715457023 standing in the name of
the second defendant, his wife Geetha Lakshmi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
3. This Court, upon going through the impugned judgment and the grounds
of appeal, finds that the suit has been filed on the premise that the premium for the
policy standing in the name of the wife was paid by the plaintiff, and therefore, he
claims she is not entitled to the matured amount.
4. A life insurance policy is governed by specific terms and conditions. As
per the policy, LIC is bound to pay the matured amount to the person in whose
name the policy is issued. No person can claim the amount on the ground that the
policy was taken in a benami name, even if it is in the name of the plaintiff’s own
wife. The Trial Court has rightly considered the matter and dismissed the suit.
5. As far as the present appeal is concerned, when no ground is made out to
sustain the appeal, this Court has adequate power to dismiss the appeal at the
inception stage, even without issuing notice to the respondents. In this case, we
find that the grounds of appeal do not withstand scrutiny in law and therefore,
there is no necessity to entertain the appeal.
6. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. It is made clear that any observations
made in this order shall have no bearing on the pending suits or other proceedings
between the parties.
(G.J.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.)
26.11.2025
skr
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
skr
26.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 12:45:27 pm )
