JUDGMENT : P.G.Ajithkumar, J. Considering the nature of the dispute involved, we direct to mask the names of the parties and the child. 2. The petitioner is the father of a child aged 7 years. The respondent is the mother. The petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order dated 05.09.2022 of the Family Court, Mavelikkara. As per the said order, I.A.No.3 of 2022 filed by the petitioner in O.P.(G&W) No.674 of 2022 for getting interim custody of the child was dismissed. The petitioner was, however, allowed to interact with the child between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon on the fourth Saturday of every month in the premises of the court and in the presence of staff on duty in the court. 3. On 27.09.2022, notice on admission was directed to be served on the respondent. The respondent entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit and in answer to that the respondent filed an additional counter affidavit. 4. On 21.10.2022, this Court directed the parties along with the child to be present in court on 28.10.2022. In terms of the said order, they had appeared. When we interacted with the parents as well as the paternal grandparents, we noticed that expert counselling is required to the petitioner and the respondent. The child was not responding openly. The child has inhibition to speak out and interact with the father. Parties were directed to attend counselling in the Family Counselling Centre attached to the High Court Legal Services Committee. 5. On 03.11.2022, having perused the report of the Counsellor and interacted with the child, his parents and paternal grandfather, they were directed to continue counselling in the Family Counselling Centre. The matter was again considered on 10.11.2022. No much improvement in the attitude of the child and the respondent was seen. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. Marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 15.07.2012. The child was born to them on 08.06.2015. Their marriage was separated as per the judgment dated 08.10.2021 in O.P.(HMA) No.229 of 2021 on mutual consent. They had entered into an agreement, Ext.P2, with regard to the custody of the child. 7. Marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 15.07.2012. The child was born to them on 08.06.2015. Their marriage was separated as per the judgment dated 08.10.2021 in O.P.(HMA) No.229 of 2021 on mutual consent. They had entered into an agreement, Ext.P2, with regard to the custody of the child. They agreed that permanent custody of the child should be with the respondent and the petitioner has right of interaction with the child from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. on the second and fourth Saturdays every month. The petitioner was also allowed to have video conferencing with the child once in every week. The said arrangement did not last long. Alleging that every visit of the petitioner to the child at the house of the respondent was humiliating and he was not allowed to interact with the child freely and in a conducive atmosphere, the petitioner filed O.P. (G&W) No.674 of 2022 before the Family Court, Mavelikkara, Ext.P3. The relief claimed is that permanent custody of the child should be given to the petitioner. He also filed Ext.P5, I.A.No.3 of 2022 seeking an order directing the respondent to produce the child before the Family Court and give him interim custody of the child. That application was contested by the respondent. Alleging that the matter was not considered by the Family Court in the proper perspective, the petitioner filed O.P.(FC) No.500 of 2022 before this Court. After interacting with the child and the parents, this Court as per order dated 01.09.2022 directed the Family Court, Mavelikkara to hear and dispose of I.A.No.3 of 2022 on 05.09.2022. The Family Court, after interacting with the child and parents and also hearing both sides, on 05.09.2022 dismissed I.A.No.3 of 2020; however, permitting the petitioner to interact with the minor child between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon on the fourth Saturday of every month, in the premises of the Family Court and in the presence of the staff on duty. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that only due to the adamant stand taken by the respondent and unnecessary influence on his will, the child is expressing reluctance to interact with the petitioner. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that only due to the adamant stand taken by the respondent and unnecessary influence on his will, the child is expressing reluctance to interact with the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is a person of unpredictable characters, getting violent at any time for no reason and from his own admissions, he has mental illness like adjustment disorder. The learned counsel therefore would submit that entrusting custody of the child with the petitioner is hazardous and will result in emotional stress to the child. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also would submit that in the light of the undertaking in Ext.P2, the petitioner has no right to claim permanent custody of the child and in the light of his mental illness, right for free interaction with the child cannot also be given to him. 10. Ext.P2 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, in the wake of their filing a petition for divorce on mutual consent. As per the terms in Ext.P2, the petitioner is entitled to have interaction with the child on second and fourth Saturdays every month between 10.00 a.m. till 2.00 p.m. Permission to have video conferencing with the child on a day every week was also given to the petitioner. From the pleadings, it is evident that the said stipulations have not been duly compiled with. Of course, when O.P.(G&W) No.674 of 2022 was filed along with an application for interim custody, Ext.P5, it was considered by the Family Court, Mavelikkara and the petitioner was permitted to have interaction with the child in the premises of the court. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not allowed free interaction with the child. When he is permitted to talk to the child only in the presence of the member of the staff of the court, no purpose of a fruitful interaction between the father and child is possible. Therefore, his prayer now is to give him weekend custody of the child by permitting the child to be with him on Saturday and Sunday, twice in a month. He seeks to get custody of the child during Onam, Christmas, etc. Therefore, his prayer now is to give him weekend custody of the child by permitting the child to be with him on Saturday and Sunday, twice in a month. He seeks to get custody of the child during Onam, Christmas, etc. holidays as well. 11. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal [ (1973) 1 SCC 840 ] the Apex Court held that all orders relating to the custody of the minor wards from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstances. With the changed conditions and circumstances, including the passage of time, the Court is entitled to vary such orders if such variation is considered to be in the interest of the welfare of the wards. Orders relating to custody of wards even when based on consent are liable to be varied by the Court if the welfare of the wards demands variation. In view of the law laid down in Rosy Jacob (supra) it is possible for the parties to approach the court to get a custody order modified, pointing out change of circumstances. As far as the impugned order is concerned, the Family Court took every aspect into account and an appropriate view was taken. 12. In Rosy Jacob (supra) the Apex Court reminded courts about the need to have an attitudinal change in the matter relating custody of children. It was held that the children are not mere chattels, nor are they mere playthings for their parents. The absolute right of parents over the destinies and the lives of their children has, in the modern changed social conditions, yielded to the considerations of their welfare as human beings so that they may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be valuable members of the society and the guardian court in case of a dispute between the mother and the father is expected to strike a just and proper balance between the requirements of the welfare of the minor children and the rights of their respective parents over them. 13. 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. 13. 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. 14. In Yashita Sahu (supra) 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 parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. 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 custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights. A child has a human right to have the love and affection of both parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of her/his parents. 15. In Vasudha Sethi and others v. Kiran V. Bhaskar and another [ AIR 2022 SC 476 ] the Apex Court held that, whenever the court disturbs the custody of one parent unless there are compelling reasons, the court will normally provide for visitation rights to the other parent. The reason is that the child needs the company of both parents. The orders for visitation rights are essentially passed for the welfare of minors and for the protection of their right to have the company of both parents. Such orders are not passed only for protecting the rights of the parents. xx xx xx The court cannot accept the submission that, while applying the welfare principle, the rights of the mother or father need to be protected. The consideration of the well-being and welfare of the child must get precedence over the individual or personal rights of the parents. 16. In Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka & others [ AIR 2022 SC 3511 ], the Apex Court reiterated the law that the welfare of the children is of paramount consideration in an enquiry regarding custody of children. The Apex Court explained the law as follows: “8. At the outset we may state that in a matter involving the question of custody of a child it has to be borne in mind that the question ‘what is the wish/desire of the child’ is different and distinct from the question ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’. Certainly, the wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. Certainly, the wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. When couples are at loggerheads and wanted to part their ways as parthian shot they may level extreme allegations against each other so as to depict the other unworthy to have the custody of the child. In the circumstances, we are of the view that for considering the claim for custody of a minor child, unless very serious, proven conduct which should make one of them unworthy to claim for custody of the child concerned, the question can and shall be decided solely looking into the question as to, ‘what would be the best interest of the child concerned’. In other words, welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration. In that view of the matter we think it absolutely unnecessary to discuss and deal with all the contentions and allegations in their respective pleadings and affidavits.” (underline supplied) 17. From our interaction with the child and also the successive reports of the Counsellor, we noticed that there is much reluctance for the child to go along with the father. We, however, noticed that the child has an emotional attachment with the father, but for some reasons, he is not prepared to freely interact with the father, unless compelled. From the detailed pleadings submitted by the parties their attitude is evident. There are ego clashes. 18. A child has to grow feeling love and affection from both parents and also in an environment free from the influences of hates and hatred. If a parent, either the father or the mother, induces a feeling of hatred against the other parent, that will create a dilemma in the psyche of the child, which eventually will form part of his character. If such a psychological adversity in the mind of the child is infused, the parent knowingly or unknowingly makes the child an unworthy citizen. Parents may have reasons to quarrel with each other, but that shall not reflect in the life of the children. Parents shall have only one motto while rearing a child; the welfare of the child. If such a psychological adversity in the mind of the child is infused, the parent knowingly or unknowingly makes the child an unworthy citizen. Parents may have reasons to quarrel with each other, but that shall not reflect in the life of the children. Parents shall have only one motto while rearing a child; the welfare of the child. While deciding custody of the child, the court also shall give paramount consideration to the welfare and best interest of the child and rights and personal interests of the parents come only secondary. 19. In view of what are stated above and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that allowing the petitioner to interact with the child is very much essential for the well being and proper upbringing of the child. As per Ext.P2, an arrangement for interaction has been made. Of course, the respondent objects to it stating that the petitioner has mental illness, and therefore entrusting the child with him will be against the interest of the child. Whether the allegation of mental illness is true and it has the ramification of disentitling him from interacting with the child is yet to be proved. The petitioner is working as a Senior Manager in a bank. The respondent is a Post Graduate in Ayurvedic. They can very well assess as to what shall be the best interest of the child. 20. Taking all such aspects into account, the arrangement contained in Ext.P2 shall have to be continued until the Family Court, Mavelikkara takes a final decision in O.P No. 674 of 2022 or till the Family Court considers that the said arrangement requires modification on account of change in the circumstances. 21. Hence, we dispose of this Original Petition by modifying Ext.P11 order to the effect that the petitioner shall have right to interaction with the child between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on second and fourth Saturdays of every month. The petitioner will also have the right of video conferencing with the child on every Wednesday between 7.00 p.m and 8.00 p.m. The respondent shall produce the child before the Family Court, Mavelikkara for the purpose of interaction by the petitioner as aforesaid.