IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) No. 16 0f 2009 Ms. Saarika Dubey …Petitioner Versus Sri Anand Dubey …Respondent Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. Dated: December 07, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner, namely, Ms. Saarika Dubey, duly identified by Mr. Pankaj Miglani, is present before the Court. Respondent-Anand Dubey, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Ramji Srivastava, is present before this Court. Km. Saarika Dubey alias Kamakshi Dubey is produced before me by the father-respondent. Both the counsels stated that child as well as both the parties were remain present before this Court in DV-II in first appeal no. 137 of 2009. In view of this fact, the present matter has become infructuous. Rights of the parties have to be decided in the pending litigation. This petition has become infructuous and, as such, is dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) VKG 07.12.2009