# Dr. Prakhar Kumar v. Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 286
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-17
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 285 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-prakhar-kumar-v-dr-aditi-dhaundiyal-53524
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Piyush
Shukla,
Suresh
Kumar
Gupta,
Vashishtha Narayan Tripathi

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to interim custody/visitation
rights passed by Family Court u/s 12 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, directing father to
have visitation rights and video conferencing
with children, is appealable u/s 19 of Family
Courts Act, and if so, whether appeals filed by
father and mother seeking exclusive custody of
children should be allowed or dismissed in light
of subsequent modifications of interim custody
by Family Court and pendency of main petition
for guardianship and permanent custody.

Head Notes
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - s. 12(1)
- Family Courts Act , 1984 - s. 19 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX -
Husband and wife, filed cross-appeals
against Family Court's order passed u/s
12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
granting father visitation rights thrice a
month and video contact with minor
children - Husband and wife sought
exclusive custody - During pendency,
Family Court modified interim custody
orders several times and both parties also
approached Supreme Court through SLPs -
High Court considered whether such
interlocutory order was appealable u/s 19
of Family Courts Act - Justification:

Held: Order of interim custody, was modified by
Family Court by order dated 30.05.2025 on
7 All. Dr. Prakhar Kumar Vs. Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal
287
application made by appellant-father - It was
modified by Family Court again on 18.06.2025
on another application made by father -
Respondent-mother also sought modification
and upon her application, previous orders
modified by Family Court by order dated
23.06.2025 - Factual position indicates that
matter relating to interim custody still being
contested by parties before Family Court and
has not attained finality - Impugned order has
been rendered ineffective due to supervening
events obviating need for any intervention by
Court at this stage - Later developments
changed circumstances in such a way that any
adjudication on merits of impugned order would
have no meaningful effect on rights of parties -
In view of changed circumstances, both appeals
have lost efficacy and accordingly dismissed
[Paras 21, 25, 28, 30] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Savitha
Seetharam
v.
Rajiv
Vijayasarathy
Rathnam, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2747- relied on

Valliamma Champaka Pillai v. Sivathanu Pillai,
(1979) 4 SCC 429; Dr. Geetanjali Aggarwal v. Dr.
Manoj Aggarwal, 2024 SCC Online Del 7220 -
referred to.

List of Acts
Family Courts Act , 1984; Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

List of Keywords

Custody of minor children; Interim custody;
Visitation rights (physical and virtual contact);
Maintainability of Appeal; Revision jurisdiction;
Interim protection of person and property;
Interlocutory order; Welfare of the child; Legal
guardian;
Reconciliation
between
parents;
Consent order; Modification of custody order;
Liberty to approach Family Court.

Case Arising From

APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. -
285 of 2025

Connected with

First Appeal No. 249 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2025
of the Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in
GW. No. 159 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Hemant Kumar.

Advs. for the Respondent:
Piyush Shukla, Suresh Kumar Gupta, Vashishtha
Narayan Tripathi.

## Text

286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. and further he has submitted his
caste certificate as well before the Court.
Hence, there appears no need for passing
an order for registration of F.I.R. and
investigation by the police because the
appellant himself is fully aware with the
names and addresses of the accused
persons and he is also having entire
relevant evidence pertaining to the alleged
incident. Hence, the learned Special Judge
applying the correct approach rightly held
that it was not a case which requires any
investigation by the police and it ought to
be registered as a complaint case. The
abovementioned issue is decided in the
aforesaid manner.

18. Hence, from the above discussion
and relying upon the pronouncements made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this
Court as well, I do not find any illegality or
impropriety in the impugned order that may
require any interference through exercise of
appellate jurisdiction of this Court. The
correctness of the impugned order is not
liable to be questioned. The learned
Magistrate has committed no mistake in
passing the order to treat the application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by
the appellant as a criminal complaint. The
appeal lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

19.
The
appeal
is
accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 286
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal No. 285 of 2025
&
First Appeal No. 249 of 2025

Dr. Prakhar Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Hemant Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Piyush
Shukla,
Suresh
Kumar
Gupta,
Vashishtha Narayan Tripathi

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to interim custody/visitation
rights passed by Family Court u/s 12 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, directing father to
have visitation rights and video conferencing
with children, is appealable u/s 19 of Family
Courts Act, and if so, whether appeals filed by
father and mother seeking exclusive custody of
children should be allowed or dismissed in light
of subsequent modifications of interim custody
by Family Court and pendency of main petition
for guardianship and permanent custody.

Head Notes
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - s. 12(1)
- Family Courts Act , 1984 - s. 19 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX -
Husband and wife, filed cross-appeals
against Family Court's order passed u/s
12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
granting father visitation rights thrice a
month and video contact with minor
children - Husband and wife sought
exclusive custody - During pendency,
Family Court modified interim custody
orders several times and both parties also
approached Supreme Court through SLPs -
High Court considered whether such
interlocutory order was appealable u/s 19
of Family Courts Act - Justification:

Held: Order of interim custody, was modified by
Family Court by order dated 30.05.2025 on
7 All. Dr. Prakhar Kumar Vs. Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal
287
application made by appellant-father - It was
modified by Family Court again on 18.06.2025
on another application made by father -
Respondent-mother also sought modification
and upon her application, previous orders
modified by Family Court by order dated
23.06.2025 - Factual position indicates that
matter relating to interim custody still being
contested by parties before Family Court and
has not attained finality - Impugned order has
been rendered ineffective due to supervening
events obviating need for any intervention by
Court at this stage - Later developments
changed circumstances in such a way that any
adjudication on merits of impugned order would
have no meaningful effect on rights of parties -
In view of changed circumstances, both appeals
have lost efficacy and accordingly dismissed
[Paras 21, 25, 28, 30] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Savitha
Seetharam
v.
Rajiv
Vijayasarathy
Rathnam, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2747- relied on

Valliamma Champaka Pillai v. Sivathanu Pillai,
(1979) 4 SCC 429; Dr. Geetanjali Aggarwal v. Dr.
Manoj Aggarwal, 2024 SCC Online Del 7220 -
referred to.

List of Acts
Family Courts Act , 1984; Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

List of Keywords

Custody of minor children; Interim custody;
Visitation rights (physical and virtual contact);
Maintainability of Appeal; Revision jurisdiction;
Interim protection of person and property;
Interlocutory order; Welfare of the child; Legal
guardian;
Reconciliation
between
parents;
Consent order; Modification of custody order;
Liberty to approach Family Court.

Case Arising From

APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. -
285 of 2025

Connected with

First Appeal No. 249 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2025
of the Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in
GW. No. 159 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Hemant Kumar.

Advs. for the Respondent:
Piyush Shukla, Suresh Kumar Gupta, Vashishtha
Narayan Tripathi.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.)
&
(Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Two appeals have been listed
together. In both stand impugned order
dated 19th February, 2025 made by the
Family Court directing visitation, three
times a month, for the father to have
physical contact with the children in
presence of the mother and also video
conferencing with conditions. Father of the
children has preferred First Appeal no.285
of 2025 and the mother, First Appeal
no.249 of 2025. We note that the mother's
appeal was filed prior in time. English
Translation
made
by
the
father,
of
impugned order dated 19th February, 2025,
is reproduced below.

"The said file is fixed for order.
Both the parties have been heard on the
application for interim custody 6C. I also
spoke to the minor children Khwaish and
Praditya separately in my chamber. After
talking to the minor children, it was found
that they have no knowledge of any
dispute going on between their parents
and they are well connected with their
parents,
maternal
and
paternal
grandparents. Both the children are young
at present and they need the company of
both parents. Therefore, the opposite party
Mrs. Aditi is ordered to ensure that the
minor children meet the petition for 2 hours
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the second, third and fourth Sunday of
every month at any public place or any
place of the children's choice where CCTV
cameras are present. During the meeting,
the paternal grandparents of the minor
children will also be free to meet them.
Mrs. Aditi is free to be present at the said
place by maintaining proper distance. Mrs.
Aditi is also ordered to ensure that the
minor children talk to their father and
paternal grandparents on video call every
Tuesday and Thursday of the week between
7:00 pm and 8:00 pm. Both the parties are
ordered not to say any negative thing in
front of the minor children during the
meeting and conversation. Accordingly, the
interim custody application 6c is disposed
of. The file may be presented on 29.03.2025
for reply."

(emphasis supplied)

2. Section 12(1) in Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890 is reproduced below.

"Section 12(1) The Court may
direct that the person, if any, having the
custody of the minor shall produce him or
cause him to be produced at such place and
time and before such person as it appoints,
and may make such order for the
temporary custody and protection of the
person or property of the minor as it thinks
proper"

3. An earlier Bench, to which one of
us was party (Arindam Sinha, J.) had made
order dated 16th April, 2025 on the
husband's appeal moved. Text of the order
is reproduced below.

"1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate
appears on behalf of appellant, who is
father of two children, a little boy and girl.
He submits, his client had filed for custody
of the children, as against the mother. On
query he submits, there has not yet been
any matrimonial litigation.

2. His client made application
under section 12 in Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 for visitation including overnight
stay by the children, with him. By impugned
order dated 19.02.2025, the Family Court
directed visitation, three times a month for
physical contact in presence of the mother
and video conferencing with conditions.
There is no mention regarding his client's
claim for overnight stay with the children.
Respondent no.2 (the mother) has also filed
appeal against said order.

3. He relies on view taken by a
Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka in Savitha Seetharam versus
Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam, available at
2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2747, inter alia,
paragraph 16. He seeks direction in
modification of impugned order for his
client to have substantial visitation and
contact rights.

4. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate
appears on behalf of respondent, whose
client has filed First Appeal no.249 of 2025
(Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal versus Dr. Prakhar
Kumar) and submits, welfare of the
children lies in total custody of his client.
He relies on judgment of the Supreme
Court in Yashita Sahu versus State of
Rajasthan, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67,
paragraph no.20.

5. On query, Mr. Shukla submits,
his client is ready to reconcile with
appellant. Mr. Mishra submits likewise.

6. It is unfortunate that the
children are deprived of having both their
parents. In view of submission at the Bar
7 All. Dr. Prakhar Kumar Vs. Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal
289
regarding reconciliation, list as fresh on
02.05.2025 marked at 02:00 p.m. The
parties (husband and wife) may be present
in
Court,
for
us
to
ascertain
if
reconciliation or otherwise agreement
between them for purpose of the appeal, is
possible. Till then direction made in
impugned
order
be
complied
with.
Respondent might allow some further
contact, if she will."

Appellant father filed special
leave to appeal petition (SLP) in the
Supreme Court against above order dated
16th April, 2025, disposed of by said Court
on order dated 29th May, 2025. Text of the
order is reproduced below.

"We dispose of this Special Leave
Petition by reserving liberty to the
petitioner herein to seek appropriate orders
with regard to interim custody of the minor
children for the purpose of exercising
interim custody during summer vacation.

It is needless to observe that if
such a prayer is made by the petitioner
herein before the concerned Family Court,
the same shall be considered expeditiously
and in accordance with law having regard
to the fact that presently summer vacation
is on.

The aforesaid order has been
made being mindful of the fact that the
matter is pending before the High Court
and bearing in mind that presently the
summer vacation is on.

Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of"

4. This Court re-opened after its
summer vacation, on 1st July, 2025. We
passed
order
dated 8th
July,
2025.
Reproduced below are few paragraphs from
our said order.

"Pursuant to aforesaid order of the
Supreme Court, appellant approached the
Family Court. Said Court passed order dated
30th May, 2025, directing interim custody of the
children to be with appellant between 1st and
16th June, 2025, during their summer vacation.
Dr. Mishra submits, the order was not complied
with by respondent. His client again applied to
the Family Court. There was modification on
direction for interim custody between 20th and
30th June, 2025. This direction was also not
complied with by respondent, who also applied
for modification. Ultimately, there was order
dated 23rd June, 2025 by the Family Court on
consent of the parties, to have day custody for ten
days thereafter.

Dr. Mishra submits further, in the
meantime, respondent had filed for special
leave to appeal (SLP) before the Supreme
Court against order dated 30th May, 2025,
by which interim custody of fifteen days
had been initially directed. Respondent's
SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on order
dated 30th June, 2025 of the Supreme
Court. Text of said order dated 30th June,
2025 is reproduced below.

"The Special Leave Petition is
filed questioning the order of the Family
Court dated 30.05.2025.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner does not press the Special Leave
Petition seeks liberty to withdraw and
workout the available remedies either
before the High Court or before the
Family Court.

By granting liberty as prayed for,
the
Special
Leave
Petition
stands
dismissed as withdrawn.
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.

xxx xxx
xxx"

(emphasis supplied)

5. Impugned order was made under
section 12. There is no doubt it is an
interlocutory
order
because
appellant
husband's prayer in his petition was for
custody, in which he had applied for
interim custody, dealt with by impugned
order. The main prayer is reproduced
below.

"A.
Declare/appoint
the
petitioner
who
is
the
natural
Guardian/Father of the minor children as
the legal guardian of the minor children.

B. Direct custody of the minor
child i.e. Praditya Gupta and Khwahish be
given
permanently
with
the
petitioner/father.

C. Pass any further order(s) as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the
case."

(emphasis supplied)

6. It will also appear from aforesaid
order dated 29th May, 2025 of the Supreme
Court that said Court granted liberty to
appellant's father to approach the Family
Court with further prayer for purpose of
exercising interim custody during the
summer vacation. Dr. Mishra laid extra
emphasis on 'summer vacation' happening
after impugned order was passed on 19th
February, 2025. The Family Court had, in
impugned order, recorded that interaction
with the children revealed they were not
aware of any dispute between their parents.

7. Interim orders can be varied. It is
also trite that an interim order cannot
contain or direct such as to amount to the
final relief. Order XXXIX in Code of Civil
Procedure,
1908
bears
heading,
'Temporary injunctions and interlocutory
orders'. It is noteworthy that rule 4
provides for order of injunction as may be
discharged, varied or set aside. The
Legislature used word 'interlocutory' in the
heading of said order. Order XLIII in the
Code, by clause (r) under rule 1 provides
for appeals from orders made under rules 1,
2, 2A, 4 or rule 10 in order XXXIX. By the
Code, interlocutory orders were provided
with statutory right of appeal therefrom.
Section 12 in Guardian and Wards Act,
1890 bears heading, 'Power to make
interlocutory order for production of minor
and interim protection of person and
property'. Family Courts Act, 1984 by
section 19 provides for appeal. The
provision is clear in restricting appeals to
all orders passed by said Court, except
'interlocutory orders'.

8. An exception was carved out by
section 19(4) in the Act of 1984, on
amendment, to provide for the High Court
to exercise power of revision in respect of
orders made under chapter IX in Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, such order 'not
being an interlocutory order'. Chapter IX in
said Code provides by section 125, power
to the Magistrate to direct maintenance and,
during pendency of the proceeding, interim
maintenance. Section 127 in said Code
provides for alteration in the allowance to
be
made,
on
proof
of
change
of
circumstances. Amendment to the Act of
1984, to section 19, was necessitated
because by sub-section (3) in section 1 of
7 All. Dr. Prakhar Kumar Vs. Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal
291
said Act, it was kept open for the States to
appoint different dates for commencement
of it. Those States, who did not appoint the
commencement continued to have their
Court's exercise revisional jurisdiction over
orders made under chapter IX in the Code
of 1973. It is clear, under amended section
19(4) in the Act of 1984, revision from
order of maintenance is maintainable but
not from order of interim maintenance,
awaiting determination on the claim for
maintenance.

9. The spouses have preferred their
respective appeals, wherein both seek
exclusive custody. The children have said
to the Family Court, they are happy with
both. Impugned order is interlocutory in
nature and, as such, no appeal lies
therefrom under section 19 in Family
Courts Act, 1984. On query Mr. Shukla
submits, his client is ready to approach the
Family Court. Dr. Mishra relies on view
taken by a Full Bench of the Delhi High
Court on judgment dated 16th October,
2024 in MAT. APP. (FC) 126/2019 (X vs.
Y), paragraphs 34 and 35. Paragraph 34 is
reproduced below.

"As
we
have
already
held
hereinabove that the powers exercisable
under the FC Act, could not be controlled
by the provisions of other statutes, we are
of the view that the criteria prescribed
under the GW Act, could not be applied to
test whether an order should be treated as
an interlocutory order for the purposes of
the FC Act. The mere fact that an order
under Section 12 of the GW Act has been
labelled as an interlocutory order under
the said Act, cannot, therefore, be a ground
to hold the same as an interlocutory order
under the FC Act, which Act was enacted
94 years later and was intended to provide
a much wider window for appeal. In our
view, in every case, when an order passed
by the Family Court, is taken in appeal
before the High Court, it would be
incumbent upon the Court to examine the
nature of the impugned order in its
entirety to determine whether the same is
in the nature of an adjudicatory order
which decides valuable rights of the
parties. Whenever the Court finds that an
order touches upon the vital rights of the
parties in contradistinction to an order
which is merely a procedural order, an
appeal ought to be entertained, irrespective
of the fact that the order was passed during
the pendency of the proceedings before the
learned Family Court."

(emphasis supplied)

Reasons for my above view is on
examination of nature of the order
impugned in the appeals. There is no
impediment for me to take the view in spite
of answer in the reference on judgment
dated 16th October, 2024 (supra), as law
declared
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Valliamma
Champaka
Pillai
v.
Sivathanu Pillai reported in (1979) 4 SCC
429 is that judgment of a High Court has
only persuasive value before other High
Courts.

10. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
as aforesaid, has section 12 providing for
power to make 'interlocutory order'. Then
came legislation by the Act of 1984.
Parliament in the 35th year of the Republic
of India acted upon the bill bearing
statement of objects and reasons saying,
inter alia, the need was, therefore, felt, in
the public interest, to establish Family
Courts for speedy settlement of family
disputes. By clause 2(i) in the statement of
objects and reasons it was said, the bill
sought to, inter alia, provide for only one
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
right of appeal, which shall lie to the High
Court. It was one of the objects of the bill,
enacted by Parliament. Section 19 as
amended stands in the statute by the Act of
1984. To say section 12 in the Act of 1890
cannot control section 19 in the Act of
1984 would lead to presumption that the
Legislature attached different meanings for
word 'interlocutory' as appearing in the
Act of 1890, the Code of 1908 and the Act
of 1984.

11. The appeals are dismissed as not
maintainable.

12. It is to be noted, I had dictated the
judgment in Court on impression I was
speaking for the Bench and Court Master
had accordingly marked the appeals as
dismissed on 17th July, 2025, for purpose
of the disposal record. Subsequently, my
learned brother said he will give his
separate view. Hence, in the meantime, I
modified the transcription to be my
reasoning for appreciating impugned order
to be an interlocutory/interim order.

(Per : Dr. Yogendra Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. While concurring with the view
taken by my esteemed brother (Hon'ble
Arindam Sinha, J.) regarding the dismissal
of the two appeals, I consider it appropriate
to record my opinion in the following
manner.

2. The two appeals have arisen out of a
common order dated 19.02.2025 made by the
Family Court exercising powers under
Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act,
18901, in terms of which there was a
direction granting visitation rights three times
a month for the father to have physical
contact with the children in presence of the
mother and also video conferencing, with
certain conditions.

3. The father of the children is the
appellant in First Appeal No. 285 of 2025,
and the mother is the appellant in First
Appeal No. 259 of 2025. The order under
Section 12 of the GW Act, has been made in
the main proceedings of Case No. GW.
No.159/2024 which had been filed before the
Family Court, by the father, under Sections 7,
8, 9 and 10 of the GW Act for appointment as
guardian of two minor children.

4. We have heard Dr. Anagh Mishra,
learned counsel appearing for the father of
the children, and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned
counsel appearing for the mother.

5. The impugned order granting interim
custody has been passed under Section 12 of
the GW Act, wherein an order of this nature
is described as interlocutory order. The
question of maintainability of the two appeals
under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, in
terms of which an interlocutory order is not
amenable to appeal, has been addressed by
the counsel appearing for the appellant in
First Appeal No. 285 of 2025 by referring to
a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of
Delhi, in Dr. Geetanjali Aggarwal Vs. Dr.
Manoj Aggarwal2. The reference to the Full
Bench was on the question as to whether an
order passed by the Family Court under
Section 12 of the GW Act, granting or
refusing visitation/interim custody would be
appealable under Section 19 of the Family
Court Act3. The reference was answered by
holding that orders passed under Section 12
of the GW Act would be appealable under
Section 19 of the FC Act.

6. Counsel appearing for the appellant
mother in First Appeal No. 249 of 2025 has
not disputed the enunciation of the law laid
7 All. Dr. Prakhar Kumar Vs. Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal
293
down by the Full Bench of the High Court
of Delhi.

7. Counsel for the parties have
submitted
that
the
question
of
maintainability of the appeals had been
addressed earlier also, when the appeals
were first moved, by referring to the
aforesaid Full Bench judgment. The order
sheet indicates that the appeals have
thereafter been heard on number of
occasions.

8. The father's appeal (First Appeal
No. 285 of 2025) was moved on
16.04.2025, on which date counsel for the
parties
expressed
their
readiness
for
reconciliation, and in view thereof an order
was passed directing listing of the case on
02.05.2025 to ascertain if reconciliation or
otherwise agreement between the parties
was possible. The order dated 16.04.2025 is
extracted below:

"1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate
appears on behalf of appellant, who is
father of two children, a little boy and girl.
He submits, his client had filed for custody
of the children, as against the mother. On
query he submits, there has not yet been
any matrimonial litigation.

2. His client made application
under section 12 in Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 for visitation including overnight
stay by the children, with him. By impugned
order dated 19.02.2025, the Family Court
directed visitation, three times a month for
physical contact in presence of the mother
and video conferencing with conditions.
There is no mention regarding his client's
claim for overnight stay with the children.
Respondent no.2 (the mother) has also filed
appeal against said order.

3. He relies on view taken by a
Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka in Savitha Seetharam versus
Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam, available at
2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2747, inter alia,
paragraph 16. He seeks direction in
modification of impugned order for his
client to have substantial visitation and
contact rights.

4. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate
appears on behalf of respondent, whose
client has filed First Appeal no.249 of 2025
(Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal versus Dr. Prakhar
Kumar) and submits, welfare of the
children lies in total custody of his client.
He relies on judgment of the Supreme
Court in Yashita Sahu versus State of
Rajasthan, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67,
paragraph no.20.

5.
On
query,
Mr.
Shukla
submits, his client is ready to reconcile
with appellant. Mr. Mishra submits
likewise.

6. It is unfortunate that the
children are deprived of having both their
parents. In view of submission at the Bar
regarding reconciliation, list as fresh on
02.05.2025 marked at 02:00 p.m. The
parties (husband and wife) may be present
in
Court,
for
us
to
ascertain
if
reconciliation or otherwise agreement
between them for purpose of the appeal, is
possible. Till then direction made in
impugned
order
be
complied
with.
Respondent might allow some further
contact, if she will."

9. Subsequently, on 19.05.2025, when
the appeal was taken up, the Court, after
interacting with the parties, passed the
following order:
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"1. Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned
advocate appears on behalf of petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Shukla, learned advocate
appears on behalf of respondent. There are
two children, of whom appellant is the
father and respondent, mother.

2. Submission at the Bar is with
reference to order dated 16th April, 2025
that both parties are present in Court. We
are told further that they had appeared
before co-ordinate Bench on 2nd May,
2025. Perused order made that day.

3. We have interacted with the
parties. We request them to attempt a fresh
beginning. For the purpose, this is all that
we record.

4. We are hopeful of being able to
dispose of the appeal without adjudication.
Whatever be, parties will convey their
respective positions through their learned
advocates. They need not be present in
Court.

5. List on 8th July, 2025 as
fresh."

10. The appellant-father filed a Special
Leave to Appeal (SLP), against the
aforesaid order dated 19.05.2025, and as
pointed out by Dr. Mishra, learned counsel
for the appellant-father, the SLP was
disposed of by the Supreme Court by an
order dated 29.05.2025 reserving liberty to
the petitioner therein to seek appropriate
orders for the purpose of exercising interim
custody during the summer vacations. The
order is reproduced below:

"We dispose of this Special Leave
Petition by reserving liberty to the
petitioner herein to seek appropriate orders
with regard to interim custody of the minor
children for the purpose of exercising
interim custody during summer vacation.

It is needless to observe that if
such a prayer is made by the petitioner
herein before the concerned Family Court,
the same shall be considered expeditiously
and in accordance with law having regard
to the fact that presently summer vacation
is on.

The aforesaid order has been
made being mindful of the fact that the
matter is pending before the High Court
and bearing in mind that presently the
summer vacation is on.

Pending applications(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of."

11. In pursuance of the aforesaid
order, the appellant approached the Family
Court, and an order dated 30.05.2025 was
passed by the Family Court directed
interim custody of the two children to be
with the appellant during their summer
vacations
i.e.
for
the
period
from
01.06.2025 to 15.06.2025.

12. As per counsel for the appellantfather, the said order was not complied by
the mother and his client again made
application seeking interim custody of the
children. The Family Court, on 18.06.2025,
passed
another
order
modifying
the
previous order dated 30.05.2025, and
directing interim custody of the children to
be given to their father for the period
20.06.2025 to 30.06.2025.

13. Thereafter, an application was
moved by the respondent-mother seeking
modification of the order dated 18.06.2025,
whereupon
the
Family
Court,
after
obtaining consent of the parties, passed yet
7 All. Dr. Prakhar Kumar Vs. Dr. Aditi Dhaundiyal
295
another order on 23.06.2025, which again
modified
the
previous
order
dated
18.06.2025 and directed that custody of the
minor children be given to the appellantfather from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. with a
stipulation that the children would be
permitted the facility of video call with
their mother at any time, as they desired.

14. The respondent-mother, at this
stage preferred a first appeal, First Appeal
Defective No.625 of 2025, before this
Court,
challenging
the
orders
dated
30.05.2025 and 18.06.2025 passed by the
Family Court. The said appeal was
dismissed on 26.06.2025, upon a statement
made by learned counsel for the appellant
that he did not wish to press the appeal.

15. Counsel for the appellant-father
has pointed out that the respondent-mother
had also raised a challenge to the order
dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Family
Court by filing petition for Special Leave to
Appeal No.16631/2025. The SLP was not
pressed and liberty was sought to withdraw
and work out available remedies before the
High Court or before the Family Court. The
SLP stood dismissed as withdrawn.

16.
The
main
petition
bearing
G.W.No.159/2024 filed by the appellantfather seeking an order appointing him as
guardian of minor children and also for
their permanent custody, is pending.

17. The order dated 19.02.2025,
passed by the Family Court on an
application made by the appellant-father
under Section 12 of the GW Act, which is
subject matter of the two appeals before us,
had directed visitation rights to the
appellant three times a month in the
presence of the wife and also video
conferencing with certain conditions.

18. Upon the appeal being moved
before this Court, on 16.04.2025, counsel
for the parties submitted that their clients
were ready for reconciliation, and on the
basis thereof the case was directed to be
listed on 02.05.2025 so that the parties may
be present in Court, for ascertaining if
reconciliation
or
otherwise
agreement
between them was possible.

19. Subsequently, on 19.05.2025, the
Court after interacting with the parties,
directed the case to be listed on 08.07.2025,
and expressed hope of disposing of the
appeal without adjudication.

20. It has been brought to our notice
that during interregnum, the order dated
19.02.2025, which is subject matter of the
two appeals before us, has been modified
on multiple occasions, at the behest of the
parties.

21. The order of interim custody dated
19.02.2025, was modified by the Family
Court by an order dated 30.05.2025 on an
application made by the appellant-father. It
was modified by the Family Court again on
18.06.2025 on another application made by
the father. The respondent-mother also
sought
modification
and
upon
her
application the previous orders were further
modified by the Family Court by an order
dated 23.06.2025.

22. The aforesaid developments and
the orders passed by the Family Court on
applications moved by either of the parties
from time to time, have been brought
before us by means of supplementary
affidavit dated 06.07.2025 filed by the
appellant-father.

23. These subsequent developments
indicate that the order of interim custody
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 19.02.2025, which is sought to be
impugned in two appeals has been varied
on multiple occasions by the Family Court,
on applications moved by either of the
parties. This fact is not disputed by the
counsel appearing for the parties.

24. On a query Sri Shukla, learned
counsel appearing for the respondentmother (the appellant in First Appeal
No.249 of 2025), submits, his client is
ready to approach the Family Court.

25. The factual position that has been
unfolded before us indicates that the matter
relating to interim custody is still being
agitated by the parties before the Family
Court, and the same has not attained any
degree of finality.

26.
The
main
petition
for
guardianship, and custody also remains
pending before the Family Court.

27. The impugned order of interim
custody dated 19.02.2025 having been
varied on multiple occasions, the same does
not stand in its terms.

28. The resultant position is that the
order
impugned
has
been
rendered
ineffective due to the supervening events
obviating the need for any intervention by
the
Court
at
this
stage.
The
later
developments
have
changed
the
circumstances in such a way that any
adjudication on the merits of the order
impugned would have no meaningful effect
on the rights of the parties.

29. In a situation where an appeal has
lost its efficacy, the Court is empowered -
indeed, often expected - to dismiss the
appeal as such. This general principle is
applied when, due to later developments,
circumstances have changed in such a way
that a decision by appeal Court would have
no practical effect on the rights of the
parties involved.

30. The two appeals, in light of the
changed circumstances, have lost their
efficacy. Accordingly, the appeals are
dismissed.

31. The parties are at liberty to pursue
their remedies before the Family Court.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 296
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 110 of 2024

Anil Kishore ...Petitioner
Versus
State Bank Of India & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya, Ram Achal
Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Anurag Srivastava

Issue for Consideration
That once the main writ petition, was decided
finally and was allowed quashing the impugned
orders, why the consequential relief may not be
granted.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 47 Rule 1- Writ A No.6758 of 2004
allowed and connected Writ A No.6145 of
2002
was
also
allowed
but
no
consequential
relief
granted
to
the