The court underscores the paramount importance of a child's right to spend time with both parents during custody disputes.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

This Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kollam, in O.P.No.316/2017, whereby, though permanent custody of her child has been given to her, visitation and interim custody rights have been reserved in favour of the respondent – father of the child.

2. Sri.P.K.Ibrahim – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, though his client is willing to abide by the directions of the learned Family Court, it has now become impossible, for the reason that the child is unwilling to go to the respondent- father. He explained that this is because, the respondent has never exercised either visitation or interim custody rights over the child for the last several years, the latter becoming thus totally alienated from him. He argued that, therefore, now subjecting the child to the trauma of spending time with the respondent would cause deleterious consequences. He prayed that hence this Appeal be allowed.

3. Sri.J.R.Prem Navaz – learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that this is not a case where his client has refused to exercise his rights over the child, but that the appellant had refused to allow them to meet. He contended that his client had made several attempts to see his child, but to no avail; and hence that the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong, by impelling this Appeal.

4. We notice that the learned Family Court has considered the Original Petition after having allowed the parties to trial, along with two other matters. The evidence led is in common and therefore, we have confined ourselves to those which are only relevant to this matter.

5. As ineluctable from the submissions of Sri.P.K.Ibrahim itself, the appellant is not aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Family Court per se, but impels a contention that it has now become incapable of being worked because, the respondent has not seen the child for a long time. In its crux, what he says is that, unless there is a period where the child can obtain bonding with her father through brief exchanges, overnight custody or custody during vacations cannot be allowed.

6. On the other hand, the argument of Sri.Prem Navaz is that his client has never forfeited his rights as a father, but was not allowed to spend time with the child by the appellant.

7. The disputation between the parties are, therefore, in the realm of facts, into which we cannot intervene at this stage.

8. When one examines the judgment in question, it is luculent that the learned Family Court has acted correctly in ensuring that the child spends enough time with both parents. The constitutional right of a child to spend time with parents is often lost in Court proceedings, with the emphasis being on the rival rights and obligations projected by the parties against each other. In all these cases, children are never parties and they are not even aware of what is happening around. They are thrust into litigations, for which they are not responsible in any manner; but solely because their parents are fighting. However, the right of the child, as mentioned above, can never be lost sight of. The requirement of a child to spend time with parents equally is paramount for his/her welfare and growing up as worthy citizens; and we are surely, therefore, of the view that the learned Family Court has not erred in this case.

9. As said above, the assertion of Sri.P.K.Ibrahim is that the child is not comfortable with the father now. We cannot enter into that issue at this stage, particularly when the respondent says that he has not been allowed to see the child by the appellant. We are not saying that