Family Court's interlocutory orders regarding visitation are not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, especially when subsequent events alter the initial conditions significantly.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Sinha, J.

1. Two appeals have been listed together. In both stand impugned order dated 19^th 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 19^th 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 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 Seethara