Facts
The petitioner sought to encash Fixed Deposits (FDs) held in his name, which were originally created during his minority under the guardianship of his father
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2The respondent-Bank refused redemption, citing an interim status quo order dated 21.05.2021 passed by the Family Court in a matrimonial suit (HMP No. 1082/2019) between the petitioner’s parents
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2, 4The petitioner contended that he had attained majority and that the underlying Family Suit had since been withdrawn following an order by the High Court in SCA No. 17068 of 2024
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2Consequently, the petitioner argued that the interim order had lapsed, leaving no legal barrier to redemption
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the respondent-Bank was legally justified in refusing the redemption of Fixed Deposits based on a status quo order from a suit that had subsequently been withdrawn
Source reference: p. 4, para. 42. Whether an interim order of status quo survives the withdrawal of the main proceedings in which it was granted
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Law Applied
The court applied the fundamental principle of civil procedure that interim orders are co-terminus with the main proceedings; upon the withdrawal or dismissal of the primary suit, any interlocutory or interim injunction/status quo order automatically ceases to operate
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4, 6The court further relied on the petitioner’s legal right as a major to manage and redeem financial instruments held in his name once the legal impediment of guardianship and court-mandated restrictions are removed
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The court examined the procedural history and noted the undisputed fact that the matrimonial dispute (Family Suit HMP No. 1082 of 2019), which triggered the status quo order, was withdrawn
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4The court reasoned that since the main suit no longer existed, the interim order dated 21.05.2021 could not survive independently
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Furthermore, the respondent-Bank’s counsel admitted to these facts and conceded that there was no continuing legal stay against the FDs
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Therefore, the court found that the refusal by the Bank and the subsequent rejection by the Banking Ombudsman were based on a non-existent legal restriction
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 6Holding
The court allowed the petition, holding that as the Family Suit had been withdrawn, no order restraining the encashment of the FDs remained in force
The Court quashed the communication from the Ombudsman dated 05.02.2026 and the Bank's refusals dated 11.08.2025 and 18.09.2025
Source reference: p. 1-2, 5The respondent-Bank was directed to permit the petitioner to withdraw the Fixed Deposits along with all accrued interest
Source reference: p. 2, 5, para. 6Relief was granted in terms of prayers 8(A) and 8(B)
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6Original Court PDF
ANAI HIREN JHAVERIvsCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in