husband's implicitly incurring a liability on the contract entered into
by his wife with a third party, in the absence the husband's express or
implied consent thereto, does not arise. Had it been a case of contract
between wife and husband, given the statutory obligation of spousal
maintenance, the parameters, of course, would have differed.
27. Veering back to the facts of the case, I may observe that
evidently the wife contracted, as the record reveals, the loan having
provided the sureties, who do not include her husband. The husband,
in fact, contracted the loan subsequently. In my considered view, the
Bank's plea that it bona fide believed that the petitioner could offer
his property as security is to be discounted. For by the time the wife
took the loan, the husband was not at all in the picture--his loan was
subservient.
28. Unless a person is a party to a loan transaction in whichever
capacity, the question of the Bank's exercising the general lien vis-
vis the property of that person--even if he or she were the spouse of
the contracting party--does not arise. Put differently, it falls foul of
the contractual obligations of the banker and customer.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/
WP(C).No. 2527 of 2015 (M)
LONANKUTTY ANTONY @ T.L.ANTONY,
Vs
THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
----------------------------------
W.P. (C) No. 2527 of 2015 (M)
----------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2016.
