IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1524 of 2008 SEEMA Versus NITIN KUMAR ----------- 2. 11.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner that the finding recorded in the impugned order would virtually seal the fate of the main case seeking to decide the issue of guardianship is misconceived, inasmuch as from the tenor of the order it is clear that it is only by way of an interim arrangement pending disposal of Misc.Case No. 11/2007 that the father has been held to be guardian. Therefore, anything which has been recorded is only tentative finding and definitely is not taken to be conclusive for the purpose of final order to be passed in Misc.Case No. 11/2007. Counsel for the petitioner next contended that though in the impugned order the mother petitioner has been allowed to meet the child in question in the school where he is studying, the father opposite party has not given the correct name of the school, inasmuch as he has changed three names of the school. 2 If that be so, if the right of the mother to meet the child is affected in any manner on account of game being played by the father opposite party the court will ask the father to file an affidavit where the son of the petitioner is studying at present. The petitioner thereafter will definitely have the liberty to meet the son as directed in the impugned order. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/