1 2025:CGHC:16149-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 364 of 2024 Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Umed Ram Sahu, aged about 44 years, R/o E-24, Sector-4, Thana Sectro-3, Rourkela, Sundergad, District-Odisha- 769002. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Neeta Sahu W/o Jitendra Kumar Sahu, aged About 39 years, R/o Plot No. 27, Road No.-3, Pradipti Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh- 491001. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aagney Sail, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate assisted by Ms. Vaishali Jaswani, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge 07.04.2025 1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Durg (C.G.) by which the interim application filed by the appellant was allowed and the minor child was allowed to be taken by the appellant on 29.10.2024 (04:00pm) to 30.10.2024 (04:00 pm). However, no further visiting rights were given. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking for following reliefs which is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 “a. Interim custody/visitation rights of the Appellant father to spend every second Saturday and Sunday of the month, with his minor son (Vihaan-14 years), at Appellant’s parent’s home in the same city (Bhilai, CG), along with the child’s paternal grandparents. b. permission to participate in the schooling of his minor son like parent teacher meeting, school events etc.” 2. This Court on 09.01.2025, granted interim order which is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- “As per the mediation report dated 03.01.2025, the mediation between the parties has failed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appellant/husband shall visit his wife’s place to meet his son and the wife of the appellant and her family members are directed not to create any hindrance in such meeting. The respondent/wife shall allow the appellant/husband, to visit his son every month on Saturday and Sunday, starting from this Saturday i.e., 11.01.2025 and their photographs be submitted to this Court about their conduct. List this case in the week commencing 10.02.2025.” 3. Heard on I.A. No. 03/2025, which is an application on behalf of appellant for clarification of order dated 09.01.2025. 4. It has been informed at the bar that after the interim order was passed by this Court dated 09.01.2025, the appellant did not go to meet his child. The apprehension has been shown that any untoward incident could have caused hurdles to the appellant as the atmosphere is not cordial. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the interim order shall be modified and the appellant may be permitted to meet the child at the residence of the parents of the appellant. 5. Opposing the submission, Shri Sumit Singh, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Vaishali Jeshwani, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application for custody of the child is pending before the Family Court, Durg 3 which has already reached at the stage of final hearing and in all likelihood, it would be decided, shortly hence no need for clarification of the order dated 09.01.2025. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This application is filed for clarification of the interim order of 09.01.2025 by which this Court has granted visiting rights to the appellant. As submitted by Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, the application pending before the Family Court, Durg is at final stages in all likelihood, the final order would be passed. Therefore, at this stage we are inclined to dispose off this appeal itself extending the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 till the disposal of application which pending in the Family Court Durg, as M.J.C. Civil 11/2019 titled “Jitendra Kumar Sahu Versus Smt. Neeta Sahu”. 8. In light of the above, we are not inclined to modify the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 and no additional visitation rights is given to the appellant as is prayed by him to meet his child at his residence Bhilai i.e., not in the presence of the respondent or respondent’s family members. 9. At this observation, the application (I.A. No. 03/2025) and instant appeal stand disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 10.No cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE U. K. Raju