JUDGMENT : [P.G. Ajithkumar, J.] 1. This is an appeal filed invoking Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 49 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The petitioner in O.P.(G&W) No. 379 of 2019 before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is the appellant. After condoning the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal, this appeal was admitted on 28.10.2022. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. As directed by this Court on 15.11.2022, both parties along with the child appeared in Court in person on 29.11.2022. We interacted with the child as well as the parents. 5. The appellant filed O.P.(G&W) No. 379 of 2019 seeking custody of the minor child Jake Joseph Hirosh, aged 10 years. Marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved on 31.01.2015 as per the decree in O.P.No.1454 of 2014 of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The parties agreed that the child would be in the custody of the respondent and an amount of Rs.8 lakhs was paid to the respondent towards the maintenance of the child which had to be kept in a fixed deposit. Later, the appellant filed O.P.(G&W) No.379 of 2019 alleging that the respondent went to Germany after entrusting the child with her parents and the parents were not able to look after the child. The appellant contended that he is working in Bangalore, but stays at his parental house at Kottapuram in Thrissur District since the nature of the work is 'work at home'; and he is entitled to get the custody of the child. 6. The respondent filed an objection. She contended that the appellant is not a person entitled to get custody of the child, since the custody was consented to be with the respondent. He is estopped from claiming custody of the child. Since the child is studying in a CBSE School, the place of residence cannot be changed. The respondent has already returned to her native place and is now residing with her parents and the child. 7. The Family Court recorded oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 and B1 to B5. Since the child is studying in a CBSE School, the place of residence cannot be changed. The respondent has already returned to her native place and is now residing with her parents and the child. 7. The Family Court recorded oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 and B1 to B5. The Family Court on appreciating the said evidence held that there was no reason to allow the appellant to have permanent custody of the child and accordingly the O.P. was dismissed. It is observed further that the appellant sought for making some arrangements regarding the interim custody of the child, even if he is not allowed the permanent custody. The Family Court, however, observed that the parties to take care of such matters themselves and further held that the arrangement in the judgment in Mat Appeal No.262 of 2016 would govern those matters. 8. It was alleged that the appellant was abroad, and other than the grandfather and grandmother, there was nobody to look after the child. When the appellant is available in the station and is residing along with his parents who were very much available and able to attend to the needs of the child, he is entitled to have custody of the child. It is also contended that for the welfare of the child also he should be placed in the custody of the appellant. Accordingly he claims custody of the child in modification of the Ext.A3 judgment rendered by this Court in Mat.Appeal No.262 of 2017. 9. As per Ext.A5 judgment, the appellant was allowed to permanent custody of the child. The arrangement made as per Ext.A5 judgment was not honoured by the respondent and that resulted in filing an interlocutory application to initiate coercive steps against her. The order of the Family Court in I.A.No.325 of 2018 by which the respondent was directed to produce the child and hand over to the appellant was challenged by the respondent before this court in O.P.(FC) No.160 of 2018. This Court set aside the order in I.A.No.325 of 2018 however, the petitioner was allowed to approach the Family Court for getting visitation right pointing out the change in the circumstances. The Family Court after considering the evidence rendered by the appellant held that there was no change in the circumstances warranting an order allowing custody of the child with the appellant. 10. The Family Court after considering the evidence rendered by the appellant held that there was no change in the circumstances warranting an order allowing custody of the child with the appellant. 10. 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. Therefore the earlier order regarding custody of the child may be varied if there is change in the circumstances. 11. 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. 12. 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. The court must therefore be very wary of what is said by each of the spouses. 12. 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. 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. 13. 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 of having the company of both parents. Such orders are not passed only for protecting the rights of the parents. 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 of having 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. 14. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, irresistible conclusion is that the father has the right to interact with the child when the permanent custody of the child is entrusted with the mother. Although there is an allegation that the appellant has unacceptable characters whereby he is disentitled to get the custody of the child, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate such allegations. 15. During the interaction, the child did not show any reluctance to go along with the father. In such circumstances, we are of the view that request of the appellant to have interim custody of the child is genuine. But there has been a long gap in the interaction between the father and the son. So, there shall be an opportunity first to restore the emotional intimacy between them. Therefore the appellant can be allowed to interact with the child through video call for 2 months, in order to establish an emotional bond between the father and the son. After that the appellant may approach the Family Court at Ettumanoor to consider his request for the interim custody of the child. 16. In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed of. The judgment of the Family Court dated 05.05.2022 in O.P. (G&W) No.379 of 2019 is modified to the extent that the appellant has the right to interact with the child through video call on Mondays and Thursdays in every week between 7.00 and 7.30 p.m. After a period of two months, the appellant may approach the Family Court for the interim custody of the child. If such an application is filed, the Family Court shall decide it in accordance with law bearing in mind the law laid down in the decisions mentioned hereinbefore.