: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.298 OF 2009 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.19 OF 2010 Ketan Jayendra Dadia & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Yogita Ketan Dadia ... Respondent ......... Mrs. Rajni Iyer, Sr. Counsel, Mr. Vivek Kantawala and Mrs. Shobha Pawar i/by Ravindra Parekh & Co. for the appellant Mr. N.J. Patil for respondent Both the parties are present in Court. ........ CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY, 10th 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By consent, the impugned order shall remain stayed and the interim arrangement that was arrived at and recorded by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2009 shall remain operative, pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal. The order dated 17.12.2009 reads thus:- “1. We have interviewed the child named Raj and his natural parents i.e. Mr. Ketan Dadia and Ms. Yogita Ketan Dadia with a view to ascertain what would be in the best interest of the child. It appears that the child is not very familiar with the mother since he has not been associated with her for a long time. The father has admittedly remarried. Having regard to the well recognized fact that the child needs care from both natural parents, we consider it appropriate to increase the period of access to the mother. : 2 : 2. Both the parties have agreed before us that access should be given to the mother in the following manner:- (i) On every Saturday the appellant-father will reach the child to the respondent-mother’s residence at Santacruz around 11.00 a.m. Around 4.00 p.m. on the same day the mother shall return the child by reaching him to the father at Ghatkopar. The father and the mother will ensure that they will not negatively influence the child against each other. (ii) This arrangement shall continue until further orders from this Court. 3. Stand over to 18th January, 2010. Part heard.” 2. It is needless to state that the appellant and the respondent while availing the access shall see that the child’s study shall not get disturbed and if necessary, they may mutually agree to change the days and timings of availing the access. 3. It is made clear that the additional affidavit dated 5th February, 2010 filed by the appellant was filed when the parties were negotiating settlement. Since the settlement is not arrived at, it is made clear that the additional affidavit shall remain on record without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant in the appeal. 4. Civil Application is disposed of. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.]