Additional info:
Response to my application (order 39 R1 and 2) says as follows:
Individual judgements or interim orders in a suit can not change the fundamental definition of legal banking terms such as 'either or survivor' and the entitlements associated with it.
Allowing to bring an injunction or enforce an injunction on such financial instruments would be purversely deemed as 'changing the very definition of the banking legal terms' by way of an Individual judgements or interim orders in a bilateral civil suit.
The injuctioin would perversely infring upon the 'legal rights and entitlements' of the party, which are conferred to the party vide the very definition of 'either or survivor' , even after it is convincng proved and known that the party is possessing and having the sole physical custody of all the 'original certificates' of the said Fixed Deposits.
Interpreting or changing the definition of such financial terms' solely comes under the purview of 'legislative subject matter authority' and does not come under the perview and jurisdiction of a family court.
Hence injunction saught does not have merits and is liable to dismissed.
Wife has nowhere mentioned that she earned that money and FDs were made from her earnings.
Her response says that , once a FD is made with 'either or survivor', the other party (i.e. me) can not withdraw the 'either or survivor' unilaterally just because the orignal certificates are not in his(i.e. me) possession (she means to say that 'I am cribbing but it's late')
On Top of it ,she is asking for maintenance also.