Writ petitions dismissed for lack of pleadings, improper parties, and suppression of material facts; banks bound by court summons.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(1) direct all banks to address summonses seeking litigant’s financial data with due diligence, seeking clarification on ambiguity, honouring privacy, relevant laws and judicial precedents;

(2) direct all registry staff of all courts in High Court’s territorial jurisdiction to strictly follow verification protocols and ensure that non-vakalath counsel do not “act or plead” in Court, honouring Order III Rule 4 of CPC;

(3) direct the respondent-bank to pay compensation to the petitioner, if this Hon’ble Court finds it just and reasonable, any amount at Court’s discretion, for the aforementioned constitutional violations of privacy breach and resulting mental agony, resulting physical agony and professional damage.

(4) allow such other reliefs, prayed later, as the case progresses.”

2. The Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd., Aluva Branch was arrayed as the sole respondent in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026. The appellant-petitioner is arrayed as the respondent in O.P.No. 344 of 2023 filed by his wife Padma G., before the Family Court, Aluva. The said original petition along with connected matters, i.e., O.P.Nos.356 and 359 of 2023 and M.C.No.69 of 2023, are now pending before the Family Court, Aluva, for joint trial. The grievance of the appellant-petitioner is that in the matrimonial case pending before the Family Court, Aluva, his wife obtained a summons from the said court to the respondent herein, who is the Manager of South Indian Bank Ltd., Aluva to provide his account details. According to the petitioner, the Bank provided his account details in violation of his right to privacy. Though account details sought for were for a period of three years, the Bank furnished account statement for a period of 11 years to the Family Court. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P1 list of witnesses filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.344 of 2023, with the endorsements made by the Family Court; Exts.P2 and P3 summons issued by the Family Court in O.P.No.344 of 2023; Ext.P4 deposition of the Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd., Aluva, who was examined as PW7 in O.P.No.344 of 2023; Ext.P5 reply dated 03.10.2025 obtained by the petitioner from the Public Information Officer, Family Court, Aluva, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, based on his application dated 11.09.2025; Ext.P6 certified copy of B Diary proceedings in O.P.No.344 of 2023; Ext.P7 reply dated 13.05.2025 of the Branch Operations Manager of South Indian Bank Ltd., Aluva Branch, to the request dated 24.04.2025 made by the petitioner under the provisions of the ; Ext.P8 reply dated 27.11.2025 received from the Public Information Officer of this Court to the request dated 28.10.2025 made by the petitioner; and Ext.P9 medical certificate dated 16.12.2021 issued to the petitioner.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the Bank provided the account details, which were required by the Family Court in the summons. If the petitioner has any complaint regarding the issuance of summons, he should have agitated the same before the Family Court itself. The petitioner has filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, alleging deficiency in service and claiming compensation from the Bank. After referring to Ext.P3 summons, it was pointed out that the account det