JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is directed against Order dated 26th December 2020, passed by Principal District Judge, Srinagar (for short 'court below'), disposing of as many as five applications, four filed by petitioner and one by respondent. 2. The case set up by appellant is that appellant and respondent married; out of which respondent gave birth to a male child, namely, Ahmad, and that marriage did not continue and he divorced respondent. The minor child was with respondent who did not allow him to see the child, so he filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, which was disposed of vide order dated 19th October 2015 with a direction that respondent would produce the ward in District Mediation Centre, Srinagar, and leave custody of the ward of appellant, who would have interaction/interview with the Ward from 1.00 PM to 3.30 PM twice in a month on 1st and 4th Saturday. However, respondent is said to have not adhered to aforesaid directions and continued to commit breach and violation thereof, so he filed contempt petition on 25th April 2016, in which notice was issued to respondent. During pendency thereof, respondent also filed application seeking modification of order dated 19th October 2015 on the ground that she had been appointed as Lecturer, making it difficult for her to produce the ward on two Saturdays as both the days were working days and the time fixed for meeting was also creating a lot of trouble in discharging her duties as she had to leave in the middle of working days. This application was disposed of vide order dated 8th August 2017, directing production of ward in a month on 1st and 3rd Saturdays for meeting and conveyance charge was to be borne by appellant. It is also contended that appellant also filed an application in aforesaid contempt petition and sought modification of aforesaid two orders dated 19th October 2015 and 8th August 2017, by directing respondent to allow appellant full-fledged meeting with minor in and outside the four walls of District Mediation Centre and during interaction of appellant, respondent be directed to stay away from intimate zone and further his grandparents be also allowed to interact with the minor child in the District Mediation Centre. It is also averred that despite orders and directions passed by the court below, respondent continued to flout the same. It is also averred that despite orders and directions passed by the court below, respondent continued to flout the same. According to appellant, respondent did not implement the orders of the court below, so he filed second contempt petition, but the court below is stated to have passed order impugned, of which he is aggrieved. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 4. Learned counsel for appellant has stated that impugned order has been passed at the back of appellant and without hearing him and that appellant was himself pleadings the case before the court below and the said case was listed on 11th November 2020, when the court directed counsel for respondent to file written arguments and the case was posted for 2nd December 2020. Counsel for respondent filed written arguments on 2nd December 2020 and the matter was posted for 17th December 2020, on which date appellant was absent and the court below heard arguments of counsel for respondent and posted the case for appropriate orders on 26th December 2020, on which date impugned order came to be passed. It is also contended that impugned order is not based on facts. 5. Aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for appellant as also those averments/grounds raised in the memo of appeal are misconceived. The reason being that impugned order is comprehensive and takes in its fold all aspects of the matter that were required for court below to take care of while passing impugned order. When impugned order is looked into, it does not suffer from any infirmity as projected in instant appeal. Last but one paragraph of impugned order is appropriate to be reproduced, in view of the case set up by appellant, hereunder: 'However, keeping in view the interest and welfare of the minor and the right of the petitioner, it is directed that petitioner shall be permitted to meet the child on the last Friday of every month from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM in the ADR Centre at Srinagar. Secretary District Legal Services Authority shall facilitate the visit and all precautions shall be taken to ensure prevention of COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner shall pay the conveyance charges of Rs.500/- to the respondent for each visit on the day of meeting itself against proper receipt. The respondent shall facilitate the same and shall not cause any hindrance in the interaction. Secretary District Legal Services Authority shall facilitate the visit and all precautions shall be taken to ensure prevention of COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner shall pay the conveyance charges of Rs.500/- to the respondent for each visit on the day of meeting itself against proper receipt. The respondent shall facilitate the same and shall not cause any hindrance in the interaction. The petitioner is also advised to bear the expenses of the education and all related expenses of the child including the tuition fee etc, so that he can contribute satisfactorily to the health and education of the child. However, in case the petitioner ducks to bear expenses, the respondent shall always be free to pursue the appropriate legal remedy for recovery of maintenance.' Perusal of above portion of impugned order would reveal that court below has given visitation rights to petitioner to have interaction with his son and pay conveyance charges of Rs.500/-. The court below has not only enjoined upon respondent to facilitate interaction of appellant with his son but has also cautioned respondent not to cause any hindrance in such interaction. What else could have the court below done and directed except the above one. In that view of matter impugned order does not warrant any interference. 6. For the reasons discussed above, the instant appeal is dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 7. Copy be sent down.