Bank cannot withhold matured fixed deposits due to unrelated loan of depositor's husband absent guarantor liability.

JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the fact that certain amounts deposited by the petitioner with the 1^st respondent at a time when her children namely Tejas.J and Lekshmi.J were minors, are not being paid to the petitioner despite maturity on the ground that the late husband of the petitioner had availed a loan from the 1^st respondent. It is submitted that the aforesaid Tejas.J has subsequently attained the age of majority. It is submitted that the Bank cannot refuse to pay the amounts under the Fixed Deposits on the ground that the late husband of the petitioner had availed a loan from the Bank, especially when the Bank has no case that the petitioner was a guarantor or was otherwise liable to pay the amounts due under the said loan.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the property mortgaged by the petitioner’s late husband has been subject matter of a series of litigations at the instance of children born out of his 1stmarriage. It is submitted that the petitioner is the 2ndwife of late Jyothi Kumar. It is submitted that due to the litigations pending in respect of the property, the Bank has been unable to recover the amounts due to it. It is submitted that though the petitioner is not a guarantor in respect of the loan availed by her late husband, since she would have an interest in the mortgaged property as one of the legal heirs of late Jyothi Kumar, the Bank cannot be compelled to release the Fixed Deposits to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that though the deposits were made by the petitioner since the aforesaid Tejas.J has attained the age of maturity, the amount of Fixed Deposits in his name cannot be released to the petitioner and can be released only to the aforesaid Tejas.J . 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, I am of the view that the stand taken by the respondent Bank that the amount of deposits cannot be released owing to the fact that the late husband of the petitioner had availed a loan from the Bank cannot be sustained in law. The Bank has no case that the petitioner was either a guarantor or was in any other manner liable for the debt of her husband. Therefore, the Bank cannot refuse payment of the Fixed Deposits. However, the learned counsel for the Bank is right in contending that since one of the children of the petitioner has attained the age of majority, the amounts of deposit in his name can be released only to him and not to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent Bank to release the amounts of deposit standing in the name of the aforesaid Lekshmi.J (who is admittedly a minor) to the petitioner as the natural guardian, after obtaining an indemnity bond. In so far as the amounts of deposits in the name of the aforesaid Tejas.J are concerned, the same shall be released to the aforesaid Tejas.J. It will be open to the Bank to collect KYC documents from the aforesaid Tejas.J before releasing the amounts to him. The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.