Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3526 (MAD)

R. Krishnamoorthy v. Superintendent of Police

2014-09-22

S.MANIKUMAR, V.S.RAVI

body2014
Judgment S. Manikumar, J. 1. On 02.09.2014, we passed the following order: “Father, has sought for a writ of habeas corpus, to produce her daughter, K. Umadevi, before this Court.” 2. The alleged detenue, K. Umadevi, is present before this Court. When we enquired, she submitted that there is no illegal detention by the third respondent. She further submitted that she got married to K. Muthukumar, respondent No.3. Parents of the alleged detenue present in the open Court and submitted that they are not aware of the marriage. They further stated that she is the only daughter. They have showered their love and affection, spent their time and energy, worked hard, borrowed money from the Banks to provide her the best of her life and made educated her upto post graduation. But, she has not discharged her obligations, not even financially supported them, expect by paying some amount for discharging the loan amount. Alleged detenue has stated that she has quit the job. 3. Parents have submitted that they have only 3 acres of land and they eke out their livelihood from the agricultural produce. They submitted that they were wholly depending on her daughter to discharging the loan amount and due to the event reported today, they are put to several financial constraint and sufferings. Having regard to the above submissions, we posed a question to the alleged detenue, as to whether she is legally and morally bound to repay the loan. She accepted her liability. Respondent No.3, claiming himself to be husband also came forward to discharge the loan amount borrowed from the Banks to provide education to the alleged detenue. Both of them have filed affidavit to the effect that they would discharge the loan. Father is stated to be the borrower of the loan and the alleged detenue is the co-applicant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the outstanding amount would be approximately Rs.2,50,000/-. But, no materials are available to find out, as to what exactly is the outstanding loan amount. 4. Father is stated to be the borrower of the loan and the alleged detenue is the co-applicant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the outstanding amount would be approximately Rs.2,50,000/-. But, no materials are available to find out, as to what exactly is the outstanding loan amount. 4. Though scope of HCP is limited, in view of the statement made by the alleged detenue and in order to make a comprehensive order in the habeas corpus petition, which includes discharge of loan, we direct the Manager, State Bank of Trivancore, Kovilpatti Branch and the Manager, Pandian Grama Bank, Ilayarasannenthal, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District, respectively to appear before this Court on 03.09.2014 or to depute responsible persons with records to appear. The above said Bank Managers/Deputationist should also bring necessary statement of accounts showing the balance of amount due and payable by the petitioner and should produce all the details to ascertain as to whether the sureties could be replaced, in an outstanding loan, if so, necessary forms be brought. Post on 03.09.2014 at 2.15 p.m.” 2. Subsequently, on 03.09.2014, the following order has been passed. “Pursuant to the directions dated 02.09.2014, issued by this Court, Mr. I.M.A. Jeyakumar, Assistant Manager, Pandian Grama Bank, Ilayarasanendal, is present before this Court and submitted that Umadevi, is the applicant in Educational Loan Account No.340700003 and as on today, a sum of Rs.1,23,690/- is due and payable by said Umadevi to the bank. 2. In so far as the educational loan obtained from the State Bank of Travancore, Kovilpattai, Mr. Vihith. K, Assistant Manager is present. According to him, the said Umadevi is the applicant in Educational Loan Account No.67159342708. As on today, a sum of Rs.1,47,805/- is due and payable by Umadevi. He would further submit that Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, writ petitioner/father of Umadevi was the guarantor. 2. Both the officers from the respective bank submitted that payments are not regular. As on today, a sum of Rs.2,71,490/- is due and payable to both the banks, borrowed towards for the educational loan. 3. Mr. D. Balamurugapandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the abovesaid loan amount, with interest, would be discharged by them on or before 17.09.2014. He also submitted that respondents 3 and 4 would appear on 22.09.2014. 4. 3. Mr. D. Balamurugapandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the abovesaid loan amount, with interest, would be discharged by them on or before 17.09.2014. He also submitted that respondents 3 and 4 would appear on 22.09.2014. 4. On payment of the entire outstanding amount to the above said banks, the bank authorities, shall issue a certificate of Full Satisfaction and return the title deeds obtained from the writ petitioner. If the promise made by the respondents 3 and 4 is not honoured and if there is any failure to appear on the date schedule for hearing, liberty is given to the second respondent Police to secure their presence for production. It is stated that Muthukumar/R3 is residing at No.89, First Cross, 4th Main Road, Mathikere Extension, Bangalore–54 and he is working at Quadgen Wireless Solutions, No.26/1, Wond trade centre, Brigade selcuay, Yeswanthpur, Bangalore–54. 5. Post the matter on 17.09.2014.” 3. On 17.09.2014, learned counsel appearing for both parties submitted that assurance given by Mrs. Umadevi and Mr. Muthukumar has been honoured and that education loans obtained from the State of Travancore, Kovilpatti Branch and Pandian Grama Bank, Ilyarasanendal, Thoothukudi District have been discharged vide their letters dated 08.09.2014. On that day, parties were not present. 4. Today, the petitioner as well as the alleged detenue are present. At the time of marriage, the detenue was a major and stated to be aged, 26 years. Earlier, our enquiry revealed that there is no detention by the respondent No.3. The fourth respondent, on his part stated that marriage has been solemnized. Detention has not been proved. 5. Since the detenue being a major, we are not inclined to proceed further in this Habeas Corpus Petition. In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.