GAYATRI DEVI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.1-Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Singhrawan, District-Hazaribagh to close savings bank account no.11670323426 standing in the name of the petitioner as she had never asked any concerned authority of SBI to open the said savings account in her individual name or in the joint name with the respondent no.3-Manish Kumar Manish.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was married to the respondent no.3 on 16/4/2000 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Mohalla-Shivpuri, P.O.-Hazaribagh, P.S.-Lohsinghna, District-Hazaribagh, which is her parental place. At the time of solemnization of marriage, the respondent no.3 was employed as an agent in SBI Life Insurance and was subsequently promoted to the post of Branch Manager. The petitioner and the respondent no.3 stayed together peacefully for sometime and were also blessed with one daughter and one son. However, subsequently their matrimonial relationship got strained which led to filing of a case for mutual divorce being Original (Matrimonial Title) Suit No.42 of 2018 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh. The said matrimonial suit was disposed of vide judgement dtd. 30/8/2018 granting decree of divorce under Sec. 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner started residing in Delhi in a rented house for the purpose of education of her children. While, the petitioner was in process of opening savings bank account at SBI Palam Branch, Dabri More, Delhi, she came to know that another saving account i.e. account no.11670323426 in her name was in operation at Singhrawan Branch, Hazaribagh. In fact, the petitioner had never opened the said saving bank account and she has the reasons to believe that the respondent no.3 had fraudulently opened the said account in her name. The petitioner also represented the respondent no.1 in this regard, however, the same was not responded which has compelled her to prefer the present writ petition.