ORAL ORDER

PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR

          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.      The amounts were fixed under deposits in names of the minor sons.  According to mother of the minor sons, she is entitled to withdraw the amount for their benefit.  It is explicit from the observations of the Fora below that concurrent finding is rendered to the effect that the father of the minor petitioners had deposited the amount in the FD with the bank i.e. respondent no. 1.  It appears that contention of the mother was that the amount was of minors because the grandfather had given the said amount for investment in their name.  Such an issue does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act because the dispute is as to whether the father is entitled to withdraw that amount and re-invest in name of the minor children or that mother is so entitled.

3.      The State Commission found that because the father had re-invested the amount in the FD, the mother cannot claim the withdrawal which appears to be the action taken by her on account of the dispute between the parents of the petitioners.  The dispute between the parents need not adversely affect the interest of the minor petitioners.  In this view of the matter, while upholding the impugned order, it would be appropriate to direct that the mother of the petitioners may take up the issue before the appropriate forum and in the meanwhile, for six weeks the withdrawal may not be permitted by respondent no. 1 bank to either of the parent.  With this observation, the petition is dismissed.