IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26465 of 2010(G) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SALILA, W/O.K.B.HARSHAKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS, VEDIC, 15/292 NEAR AMBEDKAR PARK, KESARI ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADVS. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA, SRI.GOPAKUMAR .G. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE GOVT.SERVANTS' CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO.123, NORTH PARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 683 513. 2. K.B.HARSHAKUMAR, KOLOTHPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARUR, PIN - 683 513. 3. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 011. 4. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 011. R3 & R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 26465 OF 2010 G ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Commercial Tax Officer. Though she is entitled to a salary of Rs.22,017/- per month, according to her she is receiving only an amount of Rs.4,006/- . This is for the reason that recoveries are made from her salary towards repayment of various loans availed by her or towards recovery of loans for which she had stood as surety. The petitioner had stood as surety for a loan transaction in which her husband, the second respondent is the principal debtor. The case of the petitioner is that her husband has deserted her and has not paid the amount due from him and therefore, proceedings have been initiated against her for recovery of the amounts payable by her husband also. According to the petitioner, if any further amounts are recovered from her salary, she would not be able to survive. Therefore, she prays for appropriate directions to stop the action for recovery initiated against her. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, divorce proceedings are pending against the second respondent, at the instance of the petitioner. There are absolutely no grounds to let the second respondent free while proceeding against the petitioner WPC 26465/2010 2 alone. In her present financial situation, she is not able to pay any further amounts towards repayment of the amounts due from her husband. It is also pointed out that the person who has stood as second surety for her husband in the loan transaction with the first respondent had filed WP(C) 691/2010 which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. The counsel places particular reliance on the following observation of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment:- “However, one fails to understand why the second respondent is not being proceeded against while action is initiated against the petitioner. Since the liability for repayment of the loan is primarily on the second respondent, it is not equitable to burden the petitioner and the 3rd respondent with the liability, if the same can be recovered from the second respondent.” The petitioner is the third respondent referred to by this Court. Though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation to the first respondent, it is submitted that no action has been taken thereon till date. 3. Since the petitioner was the surety for the loan transaction of the second respondent with the first respondent, she cannot escape from the liability for repayment of the said loan. However, in the light of the observations of this Court quoted above certainly WPC 26465/2010 3 the first respondent would have to consider why it is not possible to recover the alleged dues from the second respondent. This is especially so in view of the fact that the second respondent is no longer on cordial terms with the petitioner and is living separately. Therefore, it is necessary that the grievances of the petitioner set out in Ext.P5 are considered by the first respondent expeditiously. 4. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner set out in Ext.P5 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending disposal of Ext.P5, the salary of the petitioner for the month of August shall be disbursed to her. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 26465/2010 4