FAO No.325 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.325 of 2006 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.09.2010 **** Sushila and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Kuldeep Khatri . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Ms.Kuldeep Kaur, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.12.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat by which application filed by the respondent (Kuldeep Khatri) for the custody of minor child namely Anchal was allowed. The appeal was admitted on 23.1.2006 and operation of the order was stayed. On 18.9.2007, following order was recorded by this Court: “Present: Mr.G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for the respondent. The appellant is present in the Court along with the minor child. Copy of the order dated 26.8.2008 passed by the Mediation Cell, Rohini District Courts, Delhi was taken on record vide order dated 09.11.09. As per the said order, a FAO No.325 of 2006 (O&M) -2- compromise has been effected between the parties. According to Clause 5 of the said compromise, the custody of the baby child, namely, Anchal shall remain with her mother. However, Kuldeep Singh, the father of the baby Anchal will have meeting rights. He shall meet baby Anchal in the vicinity of the village as agreed between the parties for six hours on second Sunday of every month. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent prays time to enable him to get in touch with respondent Kuldeep Singh in order to verify the above aspect. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 17.12.2009. Respondent is directed to be present in the Court on the date fixed.” Thereafter, the case was taken up on 13.1.2010 in which following order was passed by this Court: “Present: Mr.G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. Vide order dated 18.11.2009, the respondent was directed to be present in Court in order to make statement in terms of the compromise that was arrived at between the parties on 26.8.2008 before Mediation Cell, Rohini District Courts, Delhi. Adjourned to 18.2.2010. Registry is directed to send a notice to the respondent Kuldip Khatri and also inform his counsel about the date now fixed in this case.” FAO No.325 of 2006 (O&M) -3- As per office noting dated 11.2.2010, learned counsel for the respondent has been informed for the next fixed date. On 18.2.2010, the case was adjourned by order for 03.03.2010. On 03.03.2010, case was adjourned by order for 05.05.2010 and now the case is listed before this Court. Despite the fact that learned counsel for the respondent has been informed by the Registry of this Court in terms of order dated 13.1.2010, neither the counsel for the respondent nor the respondent in person has appeared. It appears that after the compromise is arrived at between the parties, the respondent has lost his interest in the present case. In view thereof, present appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise, which was arrived at between the parties on 26.8.2008 and is also available on record. Disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 JUDGE Vivek