Dismissed¶¶18

Radha v. Sahil Yadav

Family appeal (FAO (FC)) – Interim visitation arrangements

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jan 2025FAO(FC)/52/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Radha v. Sahil Yadav, FAO (FC) No. 52 of 2024, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla), decided 02.01.2025 (neutral citation 2025:HHC:329); bench: Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan (author, oral) and Justice Rakesh Kainthla; interim visitation/custody access order; enhancement of visitation hours; eatables restriction during parent-child meetings; conduct of parties at meetings; recourse to trial court instead of appeal; appeal dismissed with liberty to approach court below; child welfare; not approved for reporting.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the appellant; appeal dismissed, with liberty reserved to approach the court below for redressal of grievances. ¶¶18

Radha Vs Sahil Yadav — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the appellant; appeal dismissed, with liberty reserved to approach the court below for redressal of grievances.

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal was justified given that it questioned only the enhancement of visitation hours granted to the respondent by the court below. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

There was no occasion for the appellant to have filed the instant appeal, as the interests of the parties had been adequately safeguarded by the learned court below in the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, more particularly its para 17.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

Any complaint of the appellant regarding the respondent's conduct had already been taken care of by the learned court below; if she had any further complaint, she ought to have approached the trial court rather than rushing to this court with the appeal.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.ratio¶¶18
The dismissal does not prevent the appellant from approaching the court below for redressal of her grievances, including the grounds taken in this appeal.obiter¶¶21
The court clarified that it had not gone into the relative merits of the case; if the appellant approaches the court below, that court shall decide her claim without being influenced by any observations made in this order, which were solely for determining the instant lis.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Family appeal (FAO (FC)) — Interim visitation arrangements — Mother (appellant) challenged trial court's order dated 17.09.2024 enhancing father's (respondent's) visitation hours; order also, on inspection of a video clip of a dispute over eatables being given to the child, barred the petitioner-father and his mother from providing eatables to the child during meetings, kept terms of order dated 17.03.2023 intact, cautioned parties on conduct, and reserved power to review. HELD: interests of the parties stood adequately safeguarded by the court below; the appeal questioned only enhancement of visitation hours and any grievance as to conduct lay before the trial court, not this Court; appeal dismissed without going into relative merits, with liberty to the appellant to approach the court below, whose future decision is not to be influenced by observations in this order.

¶1

1 ( 2025:HHC:329 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

FAO (FC) No. 52 of 2024 Decided on : 02.01.2025

¶4

Radha ..…..Appellant Versus Sahil Yadav ….Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?^No

¶8

For the Appellant:	Mr. Varun Thakur, Mr. Akash Thakur and Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:	Ms. Chetna Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate.

¶9

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral )

¶10

Having heard the matter for a considerable time, we are of

¶11

the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the appellant to have filed the instant appeal given the fact that the interest of the parties has been adequately safeguarded by the learned court below while passing the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, more particularly in para-17 thereof, which reads as under:-

¶12

“17. It is clear from the video clip produced for the inspection of this Court that the dispute between the parties arose at the spot with respect to providing some eatables to the child as the mother of the child was requesting that no eatables be provided to the child. It is ordered that no eatables be provided to the child by the petitioner or his mother during the meetings, and

¶13

¶14

( 2025:HHC:329 )

¶15

the Court shall review all the facts and circumstances and may relax its order in near future, in case the circumstances warrants. It may be stated that purely temporary orders are passed during the proceedings and such orders may be varied or modified by the Court at any time as per the circumstances that comes to light after the meetings. The rest of the terms and conditions of the order dated 17.03.2023 shall remain the same. The behaviour exhibited during the future meetings at the venue of meeting by the parties to this petition, present husband of the respondent and the mother of the petitioner, shall act as a decisive factor while deciding the future course of action in the matter by the court, hence, they are cautioned to behave decently. For the aforesaid reasons, point No.1 is partly decided in favour of the petitioner and partly against him.”

¶16

The instant appeal, noticeably only questions the enhancement of the visitation hours that has been granted to the respondent.

¶17

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that conduct of the respondent is such that it constrained the appellant to file the instant appeal. However, as observed above, this aspect of the matter has been duly taken care by the learned Court below and if at all appellant had any complaint, it was for her to have approached the trial court rather than rushing this court to file the instant appeal.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. However, disposal of this appeal in any way shall not prevent the appellant from approaching the

¶19

¶20

( 2025:HHC:329 )

¶21

court below for the redressal of grievance including the grounds taken in this appeal before the court below.

¶22

It further needs to be clarified that this court has not gone into the relative merits of the case and therefore, the learned court below shall, in the event of the appellant approaching it, decide the claim of the appellant without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order which are solely for the purpose of

¶23

determination of the instant lis.

¶24

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶25

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 2^nd January, 2025

¶26

(y.s)

Radha v. Sahil Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha v. Sahil Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bihari Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Desh Raj Vs Simro Devi

Pushap Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ms Deluxe Enterprises Vs Union of India

Vinod Kashyap Vs Sunita and Others

Jawahar Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others