Dismissed¶¶18

Sohail Rafat v. Kahkashan Naseem

Custody – interim arrangements – minor son

Uttarakhand HC9 Sept 2025AO/280/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court Nainital; Appeal From Order No. 280 of 2024; Sohail Rafat vs Kahkashan Naseem; interim custody application; minor son Master Ayan; Family Judge Dehradun Case No.37 of 2019; video conferencing/talk rights two days a month (second and fourth Sunday, 05:00-06:00 PM, 30 minutes); order dated 18.06.2024; case at final-arguments stage; appellant's adjournment on 30.08.2025; no interference warranted; appeal dismissed; directions for expeditious disposal and avoidance of adjournments.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed, with both parties directed to argue the custody matter on the next fixed date and to avoid adjournments so that expeditious disposal is ensured. ¶¶18

Sohail Rafat Vs Kahkashan Naseem — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether interference by this Court is warranted in the impugned interim order (which gave the appellant-father only video-conferencing access to his minor son for two days a month) while the underlying custody case is admittedly pending at the stage of final arguments. +1 more

¶¶17

Court's answer

Since the custody case is pending for final disposal and is admittedly at the stage of final arguments (the appellant having himself taken adjournment on 30.08.2025), no interference is warranted in the impugned interim order at this stage; the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

Both parties shall argue the matter on the next date fixed in the case and shall avoid seeking adjournment, thereby ensuring expeditious disposal.

¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Custody — interim arrangements — minor son — Appeal From Order No. 280 of 2024, High Court of Uttarakhand (Nainital). The appellant-father, whose custody suit (Case No.37 of 2019, Sohail Vs. Kahkashan) for his minor son Master Ayan is pending before the Additional Judge, Family Judge, Dehradun, challenged the interim order dated 18.06.2024 whereby, instead of interim physical custody, he was permitted only to talk to the child through video for two days a month (second and fourth Sunday, 05:00 PM to 06:00 PM, 30 minutes each session). The Division Bench (Ravindra Maithani, J., oral; Alok Mahra, J.) observed that the main case is admittedly pending for final disposal and at the stage of final arguments, and that the appellant himself took adjournment when it was listed for final arguments on 30.08.2025. Holding that no interference was warranted at this stage, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed both parties to argue the matter on the next fixed date and to avoid seeking adjournments, so that final adjudication on custody is reached expeditiously.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Appeal From Order No. 280 of 2024

¶3

Sohail Rafat ….......Appellant

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Kahkashan Naseem …..... Respondent

¶6

Present : Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Medha Pande, Advocate for the respondent.

¶7

JUDGMENT

¶8

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

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.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶12

record.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

6. The appeal is dismissed.

¶19

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.

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.09.2025

¶23

Sanjay

¶24

Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, SANJAY ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bb d504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255D D8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE KANOJIA 40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.09.10 16:10:35 +05'30'

Sohail Rafat v. Kahkashan Naseem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohail Rafat v. Kahkashan Naseem

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

Pradeep Singh Negi Vs Chairman

Narendra Singh Vs Chairman

Jaspal Singh Vs Deepa

Shri Naresh Kumar (Old Cp No. 137) Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kanhai Beragi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Ashish Vs Union of India