JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

Petitioners are the respondents in G.O.P.No.1076 of 2022 filed by the respondent herein-father for permanent custody of the minor daughter by name Shaisa Mariyam, aged 4 years. In that original petition, the respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking interim custody, in which the Family Court, Thirssur passed Ext.P6 order 02.09.2022. By that order, I.A.No.2 of 2022 was allowed thereby permitting the father to have interim custody of the minor child from 11.00 a.m. on every second Saturday till 4.00 p.m. on the following Sunday, during the first three days of Onam and Christmas vacations and also during the first ten days of April and May during summer vacations. The said order is under challenge in this original petition filed by the petitioners invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. On 29.09.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to the respondent, returnable within three weeks. This Court granted stay of operation of Ext.P6 order for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the minor child is not having any contacts with the respondent-father for more than four months and in such circumstances, the Family Court went wrong in granting overnight custody of the child to the father.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, the father was not having any contacts with the child for a period of four months, since the petitioners were not prepared to handover the child. The respondent-father is legally entitled to have proper contacts with the child, to ensure that the child does not loose social, physical and psychological contact with her father.

6. In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan [(2020) 3 SCC 67] the Apex Court held that law is well settled by a catena of judgments that, while deciding matters of custody of a child, primary and paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. If the welfare of the child so demands then technical objections cannot come in the way. However, while deciding the welfare of the child it is not the view of one spouse alone which has to be taken into consideration. The courts should decide the issue of custody only on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child. The child is the victim in custody battles. In this fight of egos and increasing acrimonious battles and litigations between two spouses, more often than not, the parents who otherwise love their child, present a picture as if the other spouse is a villain and he or she alone is entitled to custody of the child. The court must therefore be very wary of what is said by each of the spouses.

7. In Yashita Sahu [(2020) 3 SCC 67] the Apex Court noticed that a child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, and 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 and 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 manner the custody of the child should be shared between both 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