Child custody orders are inherently temporary and subject to modification. Courts must prioritize the welfare of the minor, evaluating current circumstances rather than relying on stale orders, especially when primary proceedings are subject to significant, unjustified delays.

JUDGMENT :

OM NARAYAN RAI, J.

1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated February 10, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10^th Court, Alipore in Act VIII Case No. 59 of 2018 whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter “the Code”) praying inter alia for interim custody of a minor child during all weekends, half of all school vacations, special school holidays and all special occasions of the child, including but not limited to occasions like birthday till the final adjudication and disposal of the said Act VIII case has been rejected.

2. The petitioner has instituted ActVIII Case No. 59 of 2018 praying inter aliafor custody of his minor child. In the said case, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereafter “the 1890 Act”) which was disposed of by an order dated April 12, 2023. The said order was carried in revision before this Court by filing C.O. 2501 of 2023. The said revisional application came to be disposed of on October 12, 2023 by modifying the order dated April 12, 2023 to a certain extent. By the said order dated October 12, 2023 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the learned Trial Court “to dispose of the ACT-VIII case within a period of six month mandatorily, from the date of communication” of the order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

3. Since the Act VIII case was not concluded within the time fixed by this Court, despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing C.O. 2390 of 2024.

4. The said revisional application was disposed of by this Court by an order dated July 09, 2024 by requesting the learned Trial Court to “make all endeavor to bring the said case to its logical conclusion within a reasonable time”. This Court passed such direction, uponreferring to the earlier order dated October 12, 2023 by which disposal of the Act VIII case was directed to be done within a period of six months mandatorily. Despite the aforesaid order, the Act VIII case is still continuing.

5. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed another application under Section 151 of the Code praying, inter alia, forinterim custody of the minor child during all weekends, half of all school vacations, special school holidays and all special occasions of the child, including but not limited to occasions like birthday till the final adjudication and disposal of the Act VIII case.

6. Such application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court by passing the order impugned. Feeling aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revisional application.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER:

7. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that the opposite party is solely responsible for the long pendency of the case. He refers to a table of adjournments and deferments (at pages 107 to 109 of the revisional application) and submits that the case has been adjourned on fifty four occasions and while the majority of such adjournments isattributable to the opposite party, there is none attributable to the petitioner.

8. Relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashpal Jain vs. Sushila Devi & Others, AIR 2023 SC 5652 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377 it is submitted that it has now been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court t