The court affirmed that auctioned property post-divorce is not subject to bank claims against the spouse.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to have been married to the additional 4^th respondent herein. Insofar as their relationship was not healthy, the petitioner, apart from instituting a petition for divorce, also instituted a petition for return of money before the Family Court, Kattappana. The Family Court by an order in OP(R/M) No.260 of 2019, decreed the afore application. Insofar as the decree amount was not satisfied, the petitioner filed an application seeking execution of the decree. On that basis, the property of the additional 4^th respondent herein extending to 10.12 Ares in Sy.No.153/3 of Kattappana Village, Idukki Taluk(Old Udumbanchola) was placed for sale. The petitioner purchased the afore property in the auction and Ext.P1 sale certificate was also issued. The petitioner states that on the basis of the sale certificate, mutation is also carried out in her name. However, when she attempted to remit tax under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act , 1961 she was informed that there is an attachment with respect to the afore property as endorsed in Ext.P2 tax receipt. The petitioner states that upon enquiry, she came to know that the attachment had been effected pursuant to the steps taken by the 3^rd respondent herein, who had advanced certain credit facility to the additional 4^th respondent. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents herein not to proceed against the afore property for realisation of the arrears payable by the additional 4^th respondent herein.

2. I have heard Sri. Abdul Rasac, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sadchith P.Kurup, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, as well as Sri.Sebastian Joseph Kurishumoottil, the learned Government Pleader. The notice to the additional 4^th respondent has returned as “un claimed” and the service is also declared as complete.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the credit facility obtained as above by the additional 4^th respondent from the 3^rd respondent bank was with reference to a different property in Vandanmedu village. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent bank also endorses the submission. He would also point out with reference to the averments in the counter affidavit filed that the arrears payable by the additional 4^th respondent as on 15.01.2024 was Rs.13,73,984/-.

4. As against the afore, this Court notices that the petitioner has stated that the fair value with respect to the property of the additional 4^th respondent mortgaged with the 3^rd respondent would be to the extent of Rs.34,320/- and therefore with respect to the extent of 2.48 Acres, the afore property is more than sufficient to satisfy the amount payable to the 3^rd respondent herein.

5. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent bank stated that the revenue recovery proceedings were taken when the petitioner and the additional 4^th respondent were living together as husband and wife. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner adds that later she obtained a divorce from the additional 4^th respondent

6. This Court also notices that the 3^rd respondent have already filed O.S.No 409 of 2022 before the Munsiffs Court, Kattapappana, and has obtained decree against the 4^th respondent herein, specifically as against the property hypothecated with the 3^rd respondent. Insofar as it is admitted by the 3^rd respondent that the property purchased pursuant to the sale certificate at Ext.P1 was not mortgaged by the additional

4^th respondent, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, directing the respondents to proceed against the properties of the additional 4^th respondent in Vandanmedu village covered by the judgment and decree