Laxmi Vikas Sonawane vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

¶1

903.AS.WP.920.2026.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 920 OF 2026

¶4

Laxmi Vikas Sonawane ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….Respondents

¶5

Mr. Shivshankar D. Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP. a/w. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State.

¶6

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : 7^th MARCH, 2026

¶7

P.C. :-

¶8

We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner. The learned Advocate, Mr. Shenoy, who had assisted us on 4^th March 2026, submits that he has communicated the pendency of this proceeding to the RBI. He further submits that he has no instructions to appear in the matter.

¶9

From the pleadings in the Petition, we find that there

¶10

are two Fixed Deposit Receipts drawn with Respondent No. 2, Pune Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Pune.

¶11

The first applicant in both the FDRs is, Bhagwan

¶12

1 of 5

¶13

Sufiyan Syed - PA

¶14

903.AS.WP.920.2026.odt

¶15

Khashaba Sonawane. The joint applicant is Vikas Khashaba Sonawane. The present Petitioner, Laxmi Vikas Sonawane, claims to be the legally wedded wife of Vikas Khashaba Sonawane, who has passed away.

¶16

The issue pertains to two Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs). In one FDR, the Petitioner, Laxmi Vikas Sonawane, is shown as the nominee, being the wife of the depositor. In the second FDR, wherein the first applicant is again Bhagwan Khashaba Sonawane and the joint applicant is Vikas Bhagwan Sonawane, the nomination form indicates the depositor as Bhagwan Khashaba Sonawane and Laxmi is shown as the nominee, being the wife. Prima facie, it appears that the name of the first Applicant may have been mentioned instead of the name of the joint applicant, with whom the Petitioner claims to have a husband–wife relationship. In another FD form placed on record, Vikas Bhagwan Sonawane is the sole Applicant and has mentioned the name of the nominee as Dhanashree Vikas Sonawane. However, the relationship of the nominee is not mentioned in the form.

¶17

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Laxmi,

¶18

2 of 5

¶19

Sufiyan Syed - PA

¶20

903.AS.WP.920.2026.odt

¶21

submits that this FDR, after maturity, was closed by the Bank and the proceeds were delivered to the present Petitioner, who claims that she, Laxmi, is the same person as Dhanashree. However, in the Heirship Certificate proceedings, there is no conclusion recorded by the Trial Court that Laxmi Vikas Sonawane is the same person as Dhanashree Vikas Sonawane.

¶22

The record also reveals that after the husband of the Petitioner, namely Vikas Sonawane, passed away on 12.04.2021, the Petitioner changed her name from Dhanashree to Laxmi.

¶23

We find several disputed issues before us, primarily with regard to whether the present Petitioner, Laxmi, is the same lady by name Dhanashree, or whether Dhanashree, claiming to be the wife of Vikas, got her name changed after the demise of Vikas and became Laxmi. It is further noted that the Respondent No. 2 Bank has delivered the proceeds of one FDR, upon its maturity, to Dhanashree. The two other FDRs have matured, in which the nominee is shown as Laxmi. Bhagwan Khashaba Sonawane, whom the Petitioner claims to be her father-in-law, is still alive.

¶24

3 of 5

¶25

Sufiyan Syed - PA

¶26

903.AS.WP.920.2026.odt

¶27

Considering the above, we do not wish to entertain this Petition, though we have spent considerable time examining whether we could assist the present Petitioner while exercising our Writ Jurisdiction. However, the reply of Respondent No. 2 Pune Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, addressed to the Reserve Bank of India, dated 11.11.2021, indicates that a dispute is pending before the Civil Court and that the FDRs drawn by Bhagwan Khashaba Sonawane, who is an agriculturist, are sub-judice. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner informs us that the said suit is for partition and separate possession in relation to the ancestral property.

¶28

Considering the above, it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to seek a Succession Certificate. We record that if such an application is filed, the Petitioner shall disclose this order by placing it before the said Court through her pleadings, as well as by way of an annexure to the documents annexed to the application.

¶29

Suppression of this order in the Succession Certificate proceedings would be considered a deliberate, wilful and intentional act. Needless to state, the concerned Court dealing with the

¶30

4 of 5

¶31

Sufiyan Syed - PA

¶32

903.AS.WP.920.2026.odt

¶33

Succession Certificate application shall ensure that an advertisement is published in a widely circulated newspaper, when objections are called for.

¶34

11. As such, this Petition is disposed off .

¶35

Considering the territorial jurisdiction, we direct the learned Registrar General of this Court to communicate this order to the learned Principal District Judge, Pune, for circulation to all Courts falling within the Judicial District of Pune, which have jurisdiction to deal with applications seeking a Succession Certificate.

¶36

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶37

5 of 5

¶38

Sufiyan Syed - PA

Laxmi Vikas Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Vikas Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Crestline Developer Llp., vs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bhumika Transport vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Om Sai Shaikshanik and Samajik Sanstha and Ors. vs Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Ors.

Malhar Muranjan vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Madhubala Bharatnath Yadav Alias vs the Commissioner the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Mextech Realty Private Limited (Previously Known as Nandivardhan Constructions Private Limited ) vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Urban Development Department