Uttarakhand High Court
Sohail Rafat vs Kahkashan Naseem on 9 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
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
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.
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
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bb
d504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe,
KANOJIA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D
D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE
40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA
Date: 2025.09.10 16:10:35 +05'30'
