Court No. 6 (265719) 20.08.2026 (AD 26) (S. Banerjee) CO 2627 of 2026 Soutik Das Vs. Sampita Das Ms. Debisree Adhikary …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the father and is directed against an order dated May 15, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Fast Track 2nd Court at Barasat in Misc. Case (Act VIII) No. 200 of 2020. By the order impugned the application of the mother/opposite-party praying or modification of the order dated December 11, 2024, was allowed and the application for modification filed by the petitioner on May 21, 2025, stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that though the learned trial judge allowed the application for modification at the instance of the mother but rejected the application for modification at the instance of the petitioner by a non-speaking order. She further submits that pursuant to a liberty granted by this Court by an order dated September 19, 2025 passed in CO 391 of 2025 to apply for modification of the existing arrangement of visitation, 2 the petitioner filed the application for modification which was rejected by a non-speaking order. By an order dated September 19, 2025 passed in CO 391 of 2025 the parties were given liberty to approach the learned trial judge in future for any modification of the existing arrangement. Pursuant to the said liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner filed an application praying for modification of the order dated December 11, 2024 praying for allowing the petitioner to meet with his minor son at a venue other than the chamber of the learned advocates and at least for 5 hours on each 1st and 3rd Saturday of every month. The said application was filed on May 21, 2025, i.e., prior to the order dated September 19, 2025 was passed in CO 391 of 2025. However, the mother/opposite-party herein filed an application for modification of the visitation order on May 15, 2026 praying for modification of the order dated December 11, 2024 to the extent that the visitation of the minor child shall be on 2nd Saturday of every month instead of 3rd Saturday at the same time and place as previously directed. Thus it appears that the petitioner and the opposite-party both prayed for modification of the 3 existing arrangement of visitation made by the order dated December 11, 2024. Record reveals that the petition filed by the mother/opposite-party dated May 15, 2026 was allowed on consent and the order dated February 11, 2024 was modified to the extent that the visitation of the minor shall be on the 2nd Saturday of every month instead of 3rd Saturday at the same time and place as previously directed and the remaining portion of the order shall remain unchanged. Once the petitioner/father gave consent to the modification of the order dated December 11, 2024 as prayed for by the mother/opposite-party herein, the consequence of such consent is that the application filed by the petitioner/father for modification of the self-same order, becomes infructuous. The learned trial judge was right in rejecting the prayer for modification at the instance of the father/petitioner herein. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The learned Additional District Judge Fast Track 2nd Court at Barasat is requested to dispose of the Misc. Case (Act VIII) No. 200 of 2020 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4 six months from the next date fixed, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)