A.S. Bopanna, J.

The petitioners in both these petitions are assailing the order dated 13-8-2008 passed by the Family Court, Mysuru on I. A. Nos. 1 and 2 in O. S. No.30/2008. The petitioner - State Bank of Mysuru in W.P. No. 2739/2009 is the second defendant and the petitioner-Sri K. Govindaraju in W.P. Nos. 2998 and 4410/2009 is the first defendant in the suit, while the respondent No. 1 in these petitions is the plaintiff in the said suit, being the wife of Sri K. Govindaraju.

2. Since they are differently arrayed in these petitions, they will be referred as ' Bank', 'Wife' and 'Husband' respectively wherever context requires, for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

3. The husband and the wife got married to each other at Mysuru on 8-6-2001 and have a son born on 6-3-2003 out of their wedlock. However, due to marital discord, they have been residing separately. The wife in fact is residing in the matrimonial house which is owned by the husband since he has moved out of the same and is residing elsewhere. The said matrimonial house is the schedule property in the suit in question. Since according to the wife, she and their son was not being maintained by the husband, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in C. Misc. No. 01/2005. The petition was disposed on 31-5-2008 granting the maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to the son while the claim of the wife was rejected. In that regard one of the consideration was also that the wife is in possession of the suit schedule property and the contention of the husband was that the wife can retain the property by repaying the loan to the bank as he does not have the means to do so. The said order is inter se between the husband and wife, to which proceedings the bank is not a party.

4. When this was the position, the bank claiming that the loan amount had not been repaid by the husband who was its former employee, in exercise of its right under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) published a paper notification dated 10-7-2003 proposing to auction the suit schedule property on 13-8-2008. The wife claiming to be aggrieved by the same as she would be denied of her right of residence and terming it as a collusive action filed the suit on 21-7-2008 and the ex parte status quo/injunction order granted has been confirmed by the impugned order dated 13-8-2008. It is in that view the husband as well as the bank have assailed the order.

5. The case of the bank is that the husband had joined its service on 18-11-1976 but as he was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case he was dismissed from service on 26-4-2003. However, when he was in service he had availed loan from the bank and had offered the suit schedule property as the security. Since the loan of Rs. 9,33,899.50 paise was outstanding, the security interest was brought to auction as per law so as to recover the amount. The husband does not have objection for recovering the amount from the said property as he is otherwise unable to repay the amount due. In that light, a threshold contention that a suit of the present nature is not maintainable due to the bar contained in Section 34 of SARFAESI Act is urged before the Family Court and is re-asserted herein.

6. These petitions were at an earlier point disposed of by the order dated 25-6-2010 on taking note of the submission on behalf of the wife that she is agreeable to discharge to loan and retain the property and in that regard, a direction was issued to the bank to return the title documents deposited by the husband, to the wife after the loan is settled as per the statement of account to be furnished. Though that was the position, the wife is stated to have disputed the dues as claimed by the bank and the issue was prolonged. The bank therefore being deprived of their right to recover, filed review petitions in R.R. Nos. 210-211/2013. This Court by the order dated 1