HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 280 of 2024 Sohail Rafat ….......Appellant Vs. Kahkashan Naseem …..... Respondent Present : Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Medha Pande, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.06.2024, passed in Case No.37 of 2019, Sohail Vs. Kahkashan, by the court of Additional Judge, Family Judge, Dehradun (“the case”), by which, an application filed by the appellant for taking interim custody of his minor son (“child”) was allowed to the extent that he was given right to talk through video to his child for two days in a month i.e. on second and fourth Sunday between 05:00 PM to 06:00 PM. It is impugned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has filed the case for custody of his child, Master Ayan, who at present is staying with the respondent, who happens to be the wife of the appellant. It is argued that during pendency of the case, the appellant moved an application for seeking interim custody of the child. But, interim custody was not given. Only he was given the right to speak through video conferencing to the child 2 for two days in a month for 30 minutes only. It is argued that appellant being father of the child has a right to keep the child with him for some time. It is argued that the respondent may not have objections to it. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, in fact, the case is at the stage of final hearing; on 30.08.2025, when the matter was listed, it is the appellant, who took adjournment. 5. It is the appellant, who filed the case seeking the custody of the child, who admittedly at present staying with the respondent. The impugned order is passed at the interim stage, by which, the appellant was given right to speak the child for two days in a month through video conferencing. Now, the case is pending for final disposal. It is admittedly at the stage of final arguments and admittedly, on 30.08.2025, when the case was listed for final arguments, it is the appellant, who took adjournment. In such situation, we are of the view that no interference is warranted. Instead parties may assist the court for expeditious disposal of the case, so that final adjudication with regard to the custody may be taken. Accordingly, no interference is warranted at this stage and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. The appeal is dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that directions for expeditious disposal of the case may be given. To it, learned counsel for the respondent is agreed. 3 8. Both the parties may argue the matter on the next date fixed in the case. They shall avoid seeking adjournment. That is how the expeditious disposal may be ensured. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.09.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bb d504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE 40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.09.10 16:10:35 +05'30'