JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1 Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 13 May 2019passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Habeas Corpus No.24675 of 2018, whereby the petition filed by the appellant (the mother) for custody of her child was dismissed, but she was granted visitation rights in the following terms:

“(I) The petitioner (Smt. Pooja Sharma) is granted visiting rights to meet her daughter, who is presently residing with the opposite party No.1. The meeting of the petitioner with her daughter (corpus) would be at the place as agreed by the parties and in case of their inability to agree on any place such meeting shall be held at the office of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow during office hours i.e. 10:00 am to 4:00 pm for two hours on a day and time agreed into by the parties or as directed by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow, on any day preferably Saturday, once in a month.

(II) During meeting hours, the petitioner would be free to give any kind of gifts to her daughter of her choice and liking and the same would not be objected to by the opposite party No.1. However, the petitioner will not take the corpus with her anywhere beyond the boundaries of the Office of Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow. Such meeting will be held in a secured atmosphere and it shall be the duty of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow to provide cordial atmosphere and security to the parties.”

3. We are not at all happy with the manner in which the visitation rights have been granted in the present case. The High Court has directed that the mother can meet the child for two hours once a month, that too, in the Office of Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow or at a place, mutually agreed to by the parties and in case of disagreement, before the District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow. However, it has been ordered that the meeting would be held in a secured atmosphere and it will be the duty of the Secretary to provide cordial atmosphere and security to the parties.

4. In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan 2020 AIR 577, this Court held that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration in matters relating to custody of children. In this context, we may refer to paragraph 22 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

“A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every re-union may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what matter the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights.”

5. When a court grants visitation rights, these rights should be granted in such a way that the child and the parent who is granted visitation right, can meet in an atmosphere where they can be like parent and child and this atmosphere can definitely not