1 ( 2025:HHC:329 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO (FC) No. 52 of 2024 Decided on : 02.01.2025 Radha ..…..Appellant Versus Sahil Yadav ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?No For the Appellant: Mr. Varun Thakur, Mr. Akash Thakur and Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ms. Chetna Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral ) Having heard the matter for a considerable time, we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the appellant to have filed the instant appeal given the fact that the interest of the parties has been adequately safeguarded by the learned court below while passing the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, more particularly in para-17 thereof, which reads as under:- “17. It is clear from the video clip produced for the inspection of this Court that the dispute between the parties arose at the spot with respect to providing some eatables to the child as the mother of the child was requesting that no eatables be provided to the child. It is ordered that no eatables be provided to the child by the petitioner or his mother during the meetings, and 2 ( 2025:HHC:329 ) the Court shall review all the facts and circumstances and may relax its order in near future, in case the circumstances warrants. It may be stated that purely temporary orders are passed during the proceedings and such orders may be varied or modified by the Court at any time as per the circumstances that comes to light after the meetings. The rest of the terms and conditions of the order dated 17.03.2023 shall remain the same. The behaviour exhibited during the future meetings at the venue of meeting by the parties to this petition, present husband of the respondent and the mother of the petitioner, shall act as a decisive factor while deciding the future course of action in the matter by the court, hence, they are cautioned to behave decently. For the aforesaid reasons, point No.1 is partly decided in favour of the petitioner and partly against him.” 2. The instant appeal, noticeably only questions the enhancement of the visitation hours that has been granted to the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that conduct of the respondent is such that it constrained the appellant to file the instant appeal. However, as observed above, this aspect of the matter has been duly taken care by the learned Court below and if at all appellant had any complaint, it was for her to have approached the trial court rather than rushing this court to file the instant appeal. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. However, disposal of this appeal in any way shall not prevent the appellant from approaching the 3 ( 2025:HHC:329 ) court below for the redressal of grievance including the grounds taken in this appeal before the court below. 5. It further needs to be clarified that this court has not gone into the relative merits of the case and therefore, the learned court below shall, in the event of the appellant approaching it, decide the claim of the appellant without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order which are solely for the purpose of determination of the instant lis. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 2nd January, 2025 (y.s)