IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4304 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JEMMA SUNNY ,METCHIL HOUSE, MRA-H NO.81,MUNDAKKAL,KOLLAM-1. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. R.V.JINEESH ,NAVY HOSPITAL, MANGALORE HILLS,VASCO-DE-GAMA,GOA,FROM R.V.BHAVAN,VELLANCHIRA,PANAVOOR,NEDUMANGAD. 2. SUJA SUNNY, W/O.JINEESH DO..DO.. 3. THE COMMANDING OFFICER INS HANSA, DABOLIM,GOA 403 801. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH,BEACH ROAD,KOLLAM. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH ,KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN,SC,K.S.CO-OP BANK FOR R5 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R3 SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) FOR R1 & 2 SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 4304 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by a mother against her daughter and son-in-law. The 2nd respondent obtained two education loans from respondents 4 and 5 for repayment of which the petitioner was a co- obligant. It appears that the 2nd respondent-daughter married the 1st respondent without the consent of the mother. Apparently in consequence thereof, the mother and daughter fell apart. The banks have started proceedings for recovery of the amount. According to the petitioner, she is unable to re-pay the loan amount which the 2nd respondent has taken. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner-mother has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Direct the 3rd respondent to recover the necessary amount from salary of the 1st respondent and pay of the monthly instalments and the over dues of the loans obtained from respondents 4 and 5 by the 2nd respondent; (b) direct the 4th and 5th respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for the recovery of the loan amount and interest which was obtained for the education of the 2nd respondent; (c) declare that the 1st respondent is liable to pay of the entire liabilities towards the loans obtained from respondents 4 and 5 solely for the education of 2nd respondent.” 2. In view of the fact that the dispute is between a mother on the one side and her daughter and son-in-law on the other side, I suggested that the matter be referred for mediation to the Kerala Mediation Center. The parties agreed to the same. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Mediation Center. Wisdom has dawn on the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2, though late, and they have W.P.C. No. 4304/2010 -: 2 :- settled the matter among themselves on the following terms: “1. The petitioner has agreed to discharge the liability in connection with the educational loan granted by the 5th respondent for the studies of the 2nd respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent has agreed to discharge the liability towards the 4th respondent Bank in connection with the educational loan granted to her, fully. 3. The 2nd respondent has also undertaken to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the 5th respondent bank within a period of 5 months from today, which will be credited in the loan liability to be discharged by the petitioner as per the 1st condition. If the 2nd respondent commits any default, the 2nd respondent will be liable to pay the interest charged by the 5th respondent bank. 4. The petitioner has promised to return the passport and Kerala Nursing Council Registration Certificate of the 2nd respondent through her counsel. 5. Both the parties have decided to not proceed with any further litigation or other harassment tactics. 6. The 1st respondent has no liability to discharge the educational loans taken by the 2nd respondent from 4th and 5th respondents. 7. The petitioner has no responsibility to discharge the liability towards the educational loan granted to the 2nd respondent by the 4th respondent.” They now request that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of that settlement. Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that although they have no objection against the settlement, their interest also may be protected appropriately. Having heard all parties, I dispose of this writ petition in terms of the settlement between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 1 and 2 on the other with a further direction that in respect of the amounts agreed to be paid by the 2nd respondent, W.P.C. No. 4304/2010 -: 3 :- respondents 4 and 5 can proceed against the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent will be liable for the same. In respect of the amount still due to be paid by the petitioner, the 5th respondent can proceed against the petitioner. I make it clear that for regularising the loan accounts, respondents 4 and 5 can insist upon payment of the over- due amounts by the person due to discharge the loan as per the agreement between the parties. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.