Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an interim order made by the learned Single Judge in Application No.5025 of 2004 in O.P.No.732 of 2003 filed under Guardians and Wards Act. 2. Pending O.P., the said application No.5025 of 2004 was filed by the respondent herein father, seeking to grant interim custody of his minor child Arjun K.Janakiraman for half of the winter December holidays from 312. 2004 to 18.01.2005. The Court, after making enquiry, has passed the order, which runs as follows: "Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to visit the minor child on every Saturday between 4.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. at the minors paternal grandfathers residence at Prithivi Avenue, Abhiramapuram. The respondent is hereby directed to make sure that the minor child is sent to the paternal grandfathers residence at the above address on every Saturday between 4.00 P.M. and 8.00 P.M. from 23. 2005 so as to enable the petitioner to have visitation right at that time." The said order is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the boy is now aged 17 years 6 months and is doing 12th standard; that as per the order, the respondent/father was permitted to meet the child on every Saturday between 4.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m.; that this would cause inconvenience not only to the child, but also cause disturbance to his study, since he is doing 12th standard and under these circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside. 4. Contrary to the above, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that though the order was passed permitting the respondent father to meet his boy on every Saturday between 4.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m., the same was not given effect to and the respondent could not meet his boy as per the order of this court. The grievance of the respondent is that he could not see his boy because of the restriction fully made by the mother, who is the appellant herein. 5. The Court, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and looking into the materials available, is of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any disturbance for more reasons than one. 5. The Court, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and looking into the materials available, is of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any disturbance for more reasons than one. Now, it is brought to the notice of the court that the boy is now aged 17 years and is also doing 12th standard. The order was passed in the year 2005 and the O.P. is of the year 2003 and now, 5 years have been over from the time of filing of the original petition. Since the order has been in force for a period of nearly more than three years, no disturbance is required at this juncture. But, it would be fit and proper to require the learned Single Judge to make an enquiry in the original petition and to pass an order on the merits of the matter within a reasonable time. Accordingly, with the above observation, this original side appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.