25.08.2026 Ct. No. 655 S.L. No.96 AMR CO 7 of 2026 Dr. Chanchal Kumar Haldar -vs- Kabita Sarkar Mr. Arnab Mukherjee Ms. Madhurima Mukherjee Mr. Aniket Bhowmick …for the petitioner 1. Learned Advocate representing the petitioner/husband is present. 2. The instant civil revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby an application dated 15.12.2025 filed by the wife/opposite party was allowed and temporary visitation was granted to her for meeting and spending time with their minor daughter from 25th December, 2025 to 3rd January, 2026, on every alternate day. 3. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the application preferred by the mother/opposite party, had granted the aforesaid temporary visitation arrangement for a specifically stipulated and limited period. The visitation was thus not granted as an open-ended or continuing arrangement, but was confined to the period commencing 2 from 25th December, 2025 and ending on 3rd January, 2026. 4. The matter is taken up for consideration at a stage when the aforesaid period fixed by the learned Trial Court has already expired. Consequently, the direction contained in the impugned order has exhausted itself by efflux of time. The temporary arrangement which constituted the subject matter of challenge before this Court is no longer operative and, therefore, no effective relief can presently be granted in respect of the said order. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, upon being confronted with the aforesaid position, fairly submits that, in view of the expiry of the period for which the temporary visitation was granted, there remains no live or subsisting issue requiring adjudication in the present revisional application. It is further submitted that there is no useful purpose in keeping the revisional application pending merely for adjudication of a challenge to an order which has already spent its force by efflux of time. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission so advanced. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is essentially supervisory and is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction and for ensuring that substantial justice is done. Such jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised where the impugned order has ceased to operate and the dispute raised against such order has 3 consequently become academic, unless there remains some surviving issue requiring determination or some continuing consequence flowing from the impugned order which calls for interference. 7. In the present case, the impugned order was expressly limited in duration. The period stipulated therein, namely, from 25th December, 2025 to 3rd January, 2026, has already elapsed. There is, therefore, no subsisting direction which can presently be stayed, modified or set aside. 8. It is also relevant to note that dismissal of the present revisional application on account of the expiry of the temporary visitation period shall not be construed as an adjudication upon the merits of any continuing dispute between the parties concerning the custody, visitation or other parental rights relating to the minor child. If any subsequent application is filed before the learned Trial Court concerning visitation or custody on the basis of any changed circumstance or for any subsequent period, the same shall be considered by the learned Trial Court independently and in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the fact that the limited period stipulated in the impugned order has already expired and no effective relief survives for consideration in the present proceeding, this Court finds no justification for keeping the revisional application pending. 4 10. Accordingly, the civil revisional application is dismissed. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the rival claims of the parties concerning custody or visitation of the minor daughter, and the dismissal of the present revisional application shall not prejudice either party in any subsequent proceeding concerning such matters. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Trial Court immediately. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)