JUDGMENT : A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. This appeal is filed at the instance of the mother and maternal grandmother of a minor girl child born on 17/9/2014 in the wedlock between the first appellant with the respondent. The respondent-father moved the Family Court, Muvattupuzha for permanent custody of the minor child. The above case was tried along with the petition filed by the first appellant for return of gold, money and past maintenance. The petition filed by the first appellant has been dismissed. The petition filed by the respondent for custody was allowed granting him permanent custody subject to visitorial rights of the first appellant between 10 am and 5 pm on every first and third Saturdays of every month. 2. On 24/6/2013, the marriage between the first appellant and the respondent was solemnized. On 17/9/2014, the child was born. On 5/5/2014, the respondent went to Kuwait for a job. It was alleged that on 26/5/2015, the first appellant and the child were forcefully taken to the house of the parents of the first appellant. It was further alleged that the mother and brother of the first appellant were involved in forcefully taking the first appellant and the child. The child suffers from a disease viz. Global Developmental Delay Seizure Disorder (Dysmorphism and Hypotonia). The parties appear to be in loggerheads from the year 2015 onwards. The first appellant filed a petition for return of gold ornaments, money etc. on 5/7/2017. On 24/11/2017, the respondent filed the present petition for permanent custody. 3. PW1 to PW8 were examined on the side of the respondent. On the side of the appellants, the first appellant was examined as RW1. The Family Court, noting that the appellants are leading immoral life, gave custody of the child to the respondent-father. According to the Family Court, keeping custody of the child with the mother-who leads an immoral life would adversely affect the welfare and future of the child. 4. We shall first advert to the oral evidence adduced on the side of the respondent. PW1 is the respondent. He deposed that the child is being treated as an orphan as the first appellant is roaming with her male friends always from morning till evening, and on account of failure to take care of the child, the child was physically and mentally weak. PW1 is the respondent. He deposed that the child is being treated as an orphan as the first appellant is roaming with her male friends always from morning till evening, and on account of failure to take care of the child, the child was physically and mentally weak. It was further deposed by him that the first appellant and her mother (second appellant) are leading immoral life. PW2 is the power of attorney holder of the respondent. Ext.A2 series of photographs are marked through him. These are the photographs of the first appellant with one Sooraj. He also deposed that the first appellant, her mother and other relatives of the first appellant are leading immoral life. PW3 is the father of the respondent. He deposed that the second appellant used to stay in many houses and there are chances of the first appellant and the ward in custody likely to follow the suit of the second appellant. PW4 is the relative of the first appellant. She deposed that the second appellant leads an immoral life and the child is being neglected in the house of the appellants. PW5 is the father of the first appellant. He deposed that his wife, the second appellant herein, after marriage of his daughter (first appellant) is living with unknown male persons. He also opined that the first appellant is likely to follow the footsteps of her mother in engaging immoral activities. PW6 is the person who claims to have intervened with the dispute between the first appellant and the respondent. According to him, it is due to the resistance of the second appellant and mother's sister, the first appellant is refusing to stay with the respondent. PW7 is the neighbour, who stated that he had occasion to repair household articles which were destructed by the first appellant. He also deposed that he has witnessed the first appellant roaming with strangers on a bike. PW8 is the neighbour. He deposed that he has witnessed the second appellant and her sister causing ruckus at the house of the respondent. The first appellant was examined as RW1. She refuted all other allegations. She was cross-examined extensively. She denied imputation of infidelity and illicit relationship with strangers. 5. On appreciation of oral testimonies of the parties, the Family Court concluded that the first appellant was leading an immoral life. The first appellant was examined as RW1. She refuted all other allegations. She was cross-examined extensively. She denied imputation of infidelity and illicit relationship with strangers. 5. On appreciation of oral testimonies of the parties, the Family Court concluded that the first appellant was leading an immoral life. This was mainly referring to Ext.A2 series which would depict the first appellant and Mr.Sooraj in the photos. The Family Court found that Mr.Sooraj is not a relative nor a friend and, therefore, the only conclusion to be inferred is that Mr.Sooraj is her paramour. The Family Court also gave weightage to the oral testimony of PW7 and PW8 who deposed that the first appellant was found travelling with Mr.Sooraj on a bike. 6. In the appeal, the respondent pressed for an interim custody of the child and also submitted that the child is neglected by the appellants. On 25/6/2021, we passed the following order: This matter is related to interim custody of the child. The dispute is between the father and mother. The child is admittedly suffering from a disease namely Global Developmental Delay Seizure Disorder (Dimorphisom and Cerebral Hypotonia). It is a congenital disease. Father alleged that the child is not being properly cared by the mother. He also alleged that child is neglected. The child is now in the custody of the mother. However, the learned counsel for the mother disputed all these allegations and submits that child is being taken care of properly. 2. Having adverted to the rival submissions, we are of the view that the Child Welfare Committee, Ernakulam shall cause inspection and enquire the well being and care given to the child by the mother. They shall also enquire whether the child requires any treatment and whether the child is being provided with any treatment. The Committee shall also report all other details required for the well being of the child and place the report before this court. The report in this regard shall be submitted before this court within two weeks. This order shall be served to the Child Welfare Committee, Ernakulam through the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. Post on 12/7/2021. 7. Based on the above order, the District Child Protection Officer, Ernakulam filed a report, dated 8/7/2021. The report in this regard shall be submitted before this court within two weeks. This order shall be served to the Child Welfare Committee, Ernakulam through the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. Post on 12/7/2021. 7. Based on the above order, the District Child Protection Officer, Ernakulam filed a report, dated 8/7/2021. The Protection Officer reported that the child is being well attended to by the first appellant and the first appellant is available full time to take care of the child. The Protection Officer also noted that the child is being given treatment at MOSC Medical College Hospital under Dr.M.C.Mathew. Though objections have been filed against the report, we do not see any reason to discredit the report. Accordingly, we accept the report on board and treat it as part of the records. 8. The welfare of the child is the concern of the Court. The child is with the mother ever since birth. The petition for custody was filed by the respondent father only after the institution of the petition for realisation of money, gold etc. in the year 2017. It is in this background, the Court has to look into whether the first appellant failed to protect the interest of the child or not. The child being a girl, the Court has to keep in mind that the custody in such circumstances normally has to be with her mother except in a case where the mother is incapacitated for any reason. 9. How does a Court determine the best interest or welfare of a child? What are the parameters to be considered? The Court is likely to fall in line to adjudicate such dispute with state of mind of the adjudicator. The adjudicator, seldom realises the importance of the requirement to adhere to the neutral value, in such adjudication process, without allowing his or her own personal notion being permeated the process. Over the years, the line of decisions of this Court and the Apex Court emphasized principles of welfare of a child. In Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017) 3 SCC 231 , the Apex Court explained twin objectives behind the principles of welfare. First with reference to the environment, the child grows and develops. The second, relatable to welfare principle ensuring optimal growth of the child. In Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017) 3 SCC 231 , the Apex Court explained twin objectives behind the principles of welfare. First with reference to the environment, the child grows and develops. The second, relatable to welfare principle ensuring optimal growth of the child. In Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali [ (2019) 7 SCC 311 ], the Apex Court delineated crucial factors to gauge the welfare of the children, relatable to the parents: (1) maturity and judgment; (2) mental stability; (3) ability to provide access to schools; (4) moral character; (5) ability to provide continuing involvement in the community; (6) financial sufficiency and last but not the least the factors involving relationship with the child, as opposed to characteristics of the parent as an individual. 10. In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal [ (2009) 1 SCC 42 ], the Apex Court reiterated that it is not the rights of the parents that fall for consideration for giving custody but the welfare of the child. 11. In the context of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the 'best interest of child' is defined under Section 2(9) as follows: (9) “best interest of child” means the basis for any decision taken regarding the child, to ensure fulfilment of his basic rights and needs, identity, social well-being and physical, emotional and intellectual development; 12. The meaning assigned to the best interest of the child under the Juvenile Justice Act is evolved through various international conventions. In 1924 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child, it was emphasized that “The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually;”. Similarly, in 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, it was declared in Principle 2 that -“The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.” 13. The inquiry and adjudication in custody matters primarily must focus on giving joint custody. The joint parental care must be the norm and, custody to single parent must be an exception. The Apex Court in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan [2020 (1) KLT 1045(SC)] and Soumitra Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar [2020 (1) KLT 1048 (SC)] have recognized these principles 14. The joint parental care must be the norm and, custody to single parent must be an exception. The Apex Court in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan [2020 (1) KLT 1045(SC)] and Soumitra Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar [2020 (1) KLT 1048 (SC)] have recognized these principles 14. The discussion as above alludes that an adjudicator have to embark upon enquiry based on neutral value related to the child as follows: i. How a child's mental and physical well being would be protected when there is wrangling for custody between the spouses. ii. Whether giving exclusive custody to one spouse, would adversely affect social, mental, physical, emotional development of the child or not? iii. In what manner, access to school, moral character and social well being would be secured. iv. Is joint parental care is ideal or desirable in the situation? 15. The inquiry relating to the character or conduct or any other aspects relating to the individual spouse would have bearing in the matter if such factors would have proximate relation with factors determining best interest of the child. If those factors have no bearing or proximate connection with welfare of the child will have to be discarded, even if the character of such spouse appears to be disrepute to others. 16. Good relationship assumes importance in a relative context. A person of bad character or morals for one may be good for the other. Husband may be of bad character or morals for wife or vice versa, but that does not mean that such person is bad for the child as well. The Court has to consider how a spouse is disposed to his or her child in building the relationship. The Court has also to find, how negative factors attributed to that spouse would reflect upon the child. Without conducting such an inquiry, the Court cannot deny custody to a spouse merely stating that spouse lives in adultery. 17. Coming back to the case, absolutely there was no evidence to hold that the first appellant was leading immoral life or such life style that would have an immediate reflection upon the welfare of the child. It is abhorrent to hold that Mr.Sooraj was the paramour of the first appellant for the reason that the first appellant was found travelling in his scooter. It is abhorrent to hold that Mr.Sooraj was the paramour of the first appellant for the reason that the first appellant was found travelling in his scooter. It is true that the appellant's father spoke about his wife, the second appellant and mother of the first appellant. However, there was no any other evidence to show that the first appellant mother of the child was leading immoral life. There was also no evidence to show the alleged immoral activities of the second appellant and her sister taking place at the residence where the child is residing. None of the witnesses spoke about carrying immoral activities at the residence where the child lives with the first appellant. 18. The environment where the child is now placed is found conducive by the District Child Protection Officer. We do not find any reason to believe that the surroundings in which the child is being brought up will adversely affect her mental and physical well being. 19. We, at the same time, do not allow the mother to have exclusive permanent custody of the child. The joint parental responsibility would ensure both parents to exercise rights and responsibilities concerning the child in best possible matters. Though the first appellant and the respondent are residing separately, the shared responsibilities can be ensured through the orders of the Court. The child’s best interest is thus protected. 20. We, in the above circumstances, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The custody of the child hereafter is allowed to be in the following manner: i. The mother shall keep custody of the child from Monday to Friday. ii. The father will have custody from Friday evening 5 PM till Sunday evening 5 PM. iii. While in custody of one spouse, the other spouse is allowed to contact the child through video call everyday between 7 PM to 7.30 PM. iv. During Summer vacation, Onam and Christmas holidays, for the first half, the child shall be with the mother and the second half with the father. v. The venue of handing over of the child is fixed at the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, or any other place the parties may mutually agree. No order as to costs.