JUDGMENT : A.J.DESAI, J. 1. By way of present appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the appellant – original opponent – father has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamnagar in Misc. Civil Application No.3 of 2020 which was filed by the respondent – original applicant – mother for the custody of the minor child Om aged about 5½ years at that time under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and the said application has been allowed and the present appellant – father is directed to hand over the custody of the minor child Om to the respondent mother on certain terms and conditions. 2. The appeal came to be admitted after hearing the parties by order dated 8.12.2021 by the Coordinate Bench. Since the child Om was studying in the school and was residing with the appellant – father at Rajkot, by order dated 23.12.2021, stop gap arrangement was made for the welfare of the child Om by directing the appellant father to drop the child Om with the respondent mother, who was residing at Jamnagar, on every Friday at 5:00 p.m. It was further directed to pick him up on every Sunday at 6:00 p.m. The said stop gap arrangement is continued till date. 2.1 The Record & Proceedings were also called for and accordingly, the same has reached to this Court. 2.2 This Court has also called for the parties along with the child Om to remain present before the Court by order dated 23.3.2022. Accordingly, both the parties along with the child Om remained present on 29.3.2022. The matter was taken-up in the Chamber and thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 12.4.2022 for further consideration. Since, it is prima facie found that there is no possibility of settlement between the appellant – father and the respondent - mother, the matter is listed for final hearing today. 3. Though the Family Court has directed to hand over the custody of the child to the respondent wife, in his interest, the parties have agreed that minor Om should continue his study at Rajkot staying with his father. 3. Though the Family Court has directed to hand over the custody of the child to the respondent wife, in his interest, the parties have agreed that minor Om should continue his study at Rajkot staying with his father. This appeal has been taken-up for final hearing in view of the fact that new academic year would start latest by 2nd week of June-2022 and therefore, it is desirable for the future of the child Om that the issue of custody is decided so he can pursue his study at appropriate place. 4. The short facts arising from the record are as under: 4.1 That the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 9.2.2012 at Jamnagar as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter, the respondent wife started to reside with the appellant husband at her matrimonial home at Rajkot. Out of the said wedlock, the respondent wife delivered a baby boy on 6.3.2014 who was thereafter named as Om. The marriage life was initially smooth, however, in the month of January-2019, some dispute arose and therefore, they started living separately. The respondent mother started living with her parents along with her child Om at Jamnagar at her parental house. The relatives of both the sides tried to settle the dispute between the parties and as per the case of the respondent mother, on 3.6.2019, her husband, his parents and other relatives visited her parental house for settlement and brought back the child Om. It is also the case of the respondent mother that her family members requested for custody of the child Om for 10 days, however, custody of the child Om was not handed over. Therefore, the respondent mother filed application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, which is the matter in question. 4.2 During the pendency of the proceedings, application for interim custody was also moved by the respondent mother for the son Om who was allegedly taken away by the appellant father by force under the pretext of settling the issue as she was always ready and willing to stay with her husband and wished to continue her marriage life. 4.3 The respondent – mother examined herself and her father as witness whereas the appellant father examined himself. No other witness was examined by the appellant father. 4.3 The respondent – mother examined herself and her father as witness whereas the appellant father examined himself. No other witness was examined by the appellant father. Certain documents were also produced with regard to the conversations, which is recorded in form of compact disc. Learned Family Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the welfare of the child would be paramount, granted custody of the child Om to the respondent mother and accordingly, the application came to be allowed. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the appellant father, would submit that learned Family Court, Jamnagar has committed error in allowing the application in view of the fact that the appellant is taking complete care of his child Om since the appellant is residing with his parents. He would further submit that it has come on record and proved that the child Om is getting education from the best school of Rajkot city and therefore, it is in the interest of the child Om that his custody is retained with the appellant father. He would submit that even the child Om is not ready and willing to go with his mother. 5.1 By taking us through the cross-examination of the respondent mother, he would submit that the respondent is residing in a joint family wherein around 20 members are staying under one roof and therefore, there are all possibilities that proper care may not be taken by the respondent who would be busy either in household works or with any miscellaneous works. He would further submit that the appellant is able to provide better education to the child Om by providing I-pad since on-line education is going on in the school and it would not be possible for the respondent if the custody of the child is given to her. By taking us through the cross-examination of the respondent, he would further submit that she was not taking care of the child Om even when she was residing with him since she was pursuing her GPSC examination. By taking us through the cross-examination of the respondent, he would further submit that she was not taking care of the child Om even when she was residing with him since she was pursuing her GPSC examination. 5.2 He would submit that the learned Family Court has committed error in relying upon the conversations through mobile phone which were in transcript produced on record and came to be exhibited without following procedure provided to produce such document under Section 65(A) and (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, if this document is not considered, there is no material to show that there is a reason to believe that the paramount interest of the child Om would be with his mother. 5.3 He would further submit that the child Om has remained in his father’s custody since June-2019 and therefore also, it is in the interest of the child Om that the custody remains with the father. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gaytri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla [ (2012) 12 SCC 471 ]. By taking us through the observations in para-8 of the said decision, he would submit that since the child Om wants to reside with his father, let the child stay in company with the appellant father. 5.4 Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the appellant, further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli [ (2008) 7 SCC 673 ] to submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the principle that the Court, while considering the case in relation to a custody of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under the statute. In light of above submissions, he would submit that the appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rachh, learned advocate for the respondent - mother, has opposed the appeal and supported the reasons assigned by the learned Family Court. In light of above submissions, he would submit that the appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rachh, learned advocate for the respondent - mother, has opposed the appeal and supported the reasons assigned by the learned Family Court. He would submit that it is the case of the respondent that she was driven out from her matrimonial home in the month of January-2019 along with the child Om who was aged less than 5 years at the relevant time and under the guise of settlement, custody of the child Om was forcefully taken away. Therefore, the respondent wife was compelled to file proceedings under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. He would submit that initially, the proceedings under Section 25 of the said Act was filed at Rajkot since the marriage was solemnized there, however, under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, an application was moved as the respondent intended to get the case transferred to the Family Court at Jamnagar on the ground that the minor child was residing with her at Jamnagar. Since it was an inter district transfer, Misc. Civil Application No.76 of 2020 was filed before this Court to transfer the said case. By taking us through the said decision, which has been produced at Exh.27 before the learned Family Court, he would submit that the said application was allowed after hearing both the parties on the ground that when the custody of the child was taken away by the appellant husband, the child Om was residing with his mother at Jamnagar and since the case was transferred to Jamnagar resultantly, the same has been decided in favour of the applicant mother by the learned Family Court, Jamnagar. 6.1 He would therefore submit that it is prima facie established that when the respondent was driven out from the matrimonial home in the month of January-2019 along with the child Om, the custody of the child Om remained with the mother till June-2019 and thereafter, under the pretext of settlement, the custody was forcefully taken away and then the child was never sent back to his mother. 6.2 He would submit that the respondent wife is always ready and willing to join the appellant, however, without any reasons, the appellant is not ready and willing to continue his marriage life with her and is deliberately not giving custody of the child Om to his mother. He would submit that even during the pendency of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act before the learned Family Court, the appellant husband had filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for decree of divorce which is pending at Rajkot now. 6.3 By taking us through the reasoning part of the impugned judgment, he would submit that the learned Family Court has specifically observed that the mother can take better care of her child with the help of her family members. He would submit that on the contrary, the appellant father who is running business of Modern Saloon (Spa) would be continuously busy and considering the age of the parents of the appellant, it is desirable that the child Om is grown up by the mother who is a house wife. He would submit that the appellant is only 12th standard pass whereas the respondent has studied upto B.A., B.Ed. and therefore, she can teach her son Om in better way. He has also taken us through the deposition of the witness of both the sides and submitted that the learned Family Court has not committed any error in allowing the application particularly when the Court below has taken appropriate care by imposing certain terms and conditions which would help the child Om to grow up in better atmosphere since the husband has been granted visitation right and also permitted to talk on mobile phone and the husband would also given right to have custody for 50% period of long vacation. 6.4 In support of his case, he has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh [ (2017) 3 SCC 231 ] and would submit that in the said case, though the child was with the father for the period of around more than 6 years, the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the welfare of the child, ultimately, held that the child should remain with the mother. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length and also have considered the case papers and perused the Record & Proceedings. 8. It is not in dispute that the marriage was solemnized on 9.2.2012 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Jamnagar. Thereafter, the respondent wife started living with her husband and in-laws at Rajkot where she delivered a child on 6.3.2014, namely, Om. 8.1 It prima facie appears that the respondent had started living at Jamnagar at her parental home since January-2019, whether she was driven out or she had left her matrimonial home at her own is not considered since the question in the appeal is with regard to custody of the minor child Om. 8.2 It is the case of the appellant father in his deposition at Exh.39 that the custody of the child Om was handed over by the respondent mother herself whereas, it is the case of the respondent that under the pretext of settlement and assurance given by the appellant, custody of the child Om who was aged less than 5 years at the relevant time was handed over to the appellant who thereafter never handed over the custody of the child Om back to the respondent. It has also come out from the record that the appellant is running an Ultra Modern Saloon (Spa) and having number of employees and therefore, obviously, he would be busy with his business and therefore, the family members of the appellant who are aged more than 60 years have to take care of the child Om whereas, on the other hand, the respondent is residing in a joint family having members of different age, who can, in our opinion, take appropriate and better care in addition to the care taken by the respondent, who is not serving anywhere. It also cannot be accepted that there is no school similar to the school wherein the child Om is studying at Rajkot city, as Jamnagar city is also having similar schools or might be better schools considering the fact that Jamnagar city is having headquarters of various institutions like Airforce, Ports, etc. It also cannot be accepted that there is no school similar to the school wherein the child Om is studying at Rajkot city, as Jamnagar city is also having similar schools or might be better schools considering the fact that Jamnagar city is having headquarters of various institutions like Airforce, Ports, etc. At present, the child is only 8 years old and therefore, if he is admitted in an appropriate school, he can pursue his education well with the help of his mother who is free in comparison with his father who is running a business of Spa. 9. As far as submission made by Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the appellant with regard to non-compliance of provisions of Section 65(A) and (B) of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, we have not dealt with the same in the present case, but have considered the case as a whole without going into the transcript produced on record. 10. The decision relied on by Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the appellant in case of Gaytri Bajaj (supra), in our opinion, would not be applicable in this case in view of the fact that in the said case, the husband and wife had filed an application under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce and it was agreed that the custody of the child would remain with the father and the said consent decree was challenged after a period of 3 years and thereafter, the custody was demanded. 10.1 The facts of the case of Mausami Moitra Ganguli (supra) is also not applicable to the present case in view of the fact that in the said case, the child was initially residing at Allahabad whereas the mother was transferred from Calcutta to Chandigarh and was working as a teacher and therefore also, his case would not be applicable. 10.2 In the decision in case of Vivek Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the factual aspects, has held that the minor child would be driven by the thoughts of the person with whom he or she having continuous custody. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision in para-11 to 19 observed as under:- “11. 10.2 In the decision in case of Vivek Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the factual aspects, has held that the minor child would be driven by the thoughts of the person with whom he or she having continuous custody. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision in para-11 to 19 observed as under:- “11. This Court in the case of Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal stated in detail, the law relating to custody in England and America and pointed out that even in those jurisdictions, welfare of the minor child is the first and paramount consideration and in order to determine child custody, the jurisdiction exercised by the Court rests on its own inherent equality powers where the Court acts as 'parens patriae'. The Court further observed that various statutes give legislative recognition to the aforesaid established principles. The Court explained the expression 'welfare', occurring in Section 13 of the said Act in the following manner: “51. The word “welfare” used in Section 13 of the Act has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as its physical well-being. Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases. 52. The trump card in the appellant's argument is that the child is living since long with the father. The argument is attractive. But the same overlooks a very significant factor. By flouting various orders, leading even to initiation of contempt proceedings, the appellant has managed to keep custody of the child. He cannot be a beneficiary of his own wrongs. The High Court has referred to these aspects in detail in the impugned judgments.” 12. We understand that the aforesaid principle is aimed at serving twin objectives. In the first instance, it is to ensure that the child grows and develops in the best environment. The best interest of the child has been placed at the vanguard of family/custody disputes according the optimal growth and development of the child primacy over other considerations. The child is often left to grapple with the breakdown of an adult institution. In the first instance, it is to ensure that the child grows and develops in the best environment. The best interest of the child has been placed at the vanguard of family/custody disputes according the optimal growth and development of the child primacy over other considerations. The child is often left to grapple with the breakdown of an adult institution. While the parents aim to ensure that the child is least affected by the outcome, the inevitability of the uncertainty that follows regarding the child’s growth lingers on till the new routine sinks in. The effect of separation of spouses, on children, psychologically, emotionally and even to some extent physically, spans from negligible to serious, which could be insignificant to noticeably critical. It could also have effects that are more immediate and transitory to long lasting thereby having a significantly negative repercussion in the advancement of the child. While these effects don’t apply to every child of a separated or divorced couple, nor has any child experienced all these effects, the deleterious risks of maladjustment remains the objective of the parents to evade and the court’s intent to circumvent. This right of the child is also based on individual dignity. 13. Second justification behind the 'welfare' principle is the public interest that stand served with the optimal growth of the children. It is well recognised that children are the supreme asset of the nation. Rightful place of the child in the sizeable fabric has been recognised in many international covenants, which are adopted in this country as well. Child- centric human rights jurisprudence that has been evolved over a period of time is founded on the principle that public good demands proper growth of the child, who are the future of the nation. It has been emphasised by this Court also, time and again, following observations in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors.: “4. The child of today cannot develop to be a responsible and productive member of tomorrow's society unless an environment which is conducive to his social and physical health is assured to him. Every nation, developed or developing, links its future with the status of the child. Childhood holds the potential and also sets the limit to the future development of the society. Children are the greatest gift to humanity. Mankind has the best hold of itself. The parents themselves live for them. Every nation, developed or developing, links its future with the status of the child. Childhood holds the potential and also sets the limit to the future development of the society. Children are the greatest gift to humanity. Mankind has the best hold of itself. The parents themselves live for them. They embody the joy of life in them and in the innocence relieving the fatigue and drudgery in their struggle of daily life. Parents regain peace and happiness in the company of the children. The children signify eternal optimism in the human being and always provide the potential for human development. If the children are better equipped with a broader human output, the society will feel happy with them. Neglecting the children means loss to the society as a whole. If children are deprived of their childhood — socially, economically, physically and mentally — the nation gets deprived of the potential human resources for social progress, economic empowerment and peace and order, the social stability and good citizenry. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution, therefore, have emphasised the importance of the role of the child and the need of its best development.” 14. Same sentiments were earlier expressed in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal[3] in the following words: “15. ...The children are not mere chattels : nor are they mere play-things for their parents. 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 useful members of the society...” 15. It hardly needs to be emphasised that a proper education encompassing skill development, recreation and cultural activities has a positive impact on the child. The children are the most important human resources whose development has a direct impact on the development of the nation, for the child of today with suitable health, sound education and constructive environment is the productive key member of the society. The present of the child links to the future of the nation, and while the children are the treasures of their parents, they are the assets who will be responsible for governing the nation. The present of the child links to the future of the nation, and while the children are the treasures of their parents, they are the assets who will be responsible for governing the nation. The tools of education, environment, skill and health shape the child thereby moulding the nation with the child equipped to play his part in the different spheres aiding the public and contributing to economic progression. The growth and advancement of the child with the personal interest is accompanied by a significant public interest, which arises because of the crucial role they play in nation building. 16. In the instant case, the factors which weigh in favour of the appellant are that child Saesha is living with him from tender age of 21 months. She is happy in his company. In fact, her desire is to continue to live with the appellant. Normally, these considerations would have prevailed upon us to hold that custody of Saesha remain with the appellant. However, that is only one side of the picture. We cannot, at the same time, ignore the other side. A glimpse, nay, a proper glance at the other side is equally significant. From the events that took place and noted above, following overwhelming factors in favour of respondent emerge. 16.1 For first 21 months when the parties were living together, it is the respondent who had nursed the child. The appellant cannot even claim to have an edge over the respondent during this period, when the child was still an infant, who would have naturally remained in the care and protection of the respondent - mother, more than the appellant – father. Finding to this effect has been arrived at by the High Court as well. This position even otherwise cannot be disputed. 16.2 The respondent was forcibly deprived by the custody of Saesha from August 04, 2010 when she was forced to leave the matrimonial house. As per the respondent, on that date the appellant in a drunken state gave beatings to her and threw her out of the house. The respondent had called the police. The police personnel called the military police and a complaint was lodged. The respondent had also called her parents who had come to her house from NOIDA. As per the respondent, on that date the appellant in a drunken state gave beatings to her and threw her out of the house. The respondent had called the police. The police personnel called the military police and a complaint was lodged. The respondent had also called her parents who had come to her house from NOIDA. Her parents took hold of the child and the appellant and when they were about to leave, the appellant pulled out the child from the hands of her mother and went inside the house and locked himself. He was drunk at that time. The police suggested not to do anything otherwise appellant would harm the child. It was assured that the child would be returned to her in the morning. In any case, the respondent and the appellant were instructed to come to the police along with the child, next morning. The appellant did not bring the child and threatened that he would not give the child to her. Since then, she had been running from pillar to post to get the child back but respondent had been refusing. The respondent, therefore, cannot be blamed at all, if the custody of the child remained with the appellant, after the separation of the parties. 16.3 Within the few days, i.e. on August 26, 2010, the respondent filed the petition seeking custody of the child and for appointment of her guardian. She did not lose any time making her intentions clear that as a natural mother she wanted to have the custody of the child. It was her mis- fortune that the trial court vide its judgment dated December 07, 2011 dismissed her petition. Though, she filed the appeal against the said judgment immediately, but during the pendency of the appeal, the custody remained with the appellant because of the dismissal of the petition by the Family Court. The High Court has, by impugned judgment dated April 02, 2013 granted the custody to the respondent. However, the respondent has not been able to reap the benefit thereof because of the interim orders passed in the instant appeal. It is in these circumstances that child Saesha from the tender age of 21 months has remained with the appellant and today she is 8 years and 3 months. However, the respondent has not been able to reap the benefit thereof because of the interim orders passed in the instant appeal. It is in these circumstances that child Saesha from the tender age of 21 months has remained with the appellant and today she is 8 years and 3 months. Obviously, because of this reason, as of today, she is very much attached to the father and she thinks that she should remain in the present environment. A child, who has not seen, experienced or lived the comfort of the company of the mother is, naturally, not in a position to comprehend that the grass on the other side may turn out to be greener. Only when she is exposed to that environment of living with her mother, that she would be in a position to properly evaluate as to whether her welfare lies more in the company of her mother or in the company of her father. As of today, the assessment and perception are one sided. Few years ago, when the High Court passed the impugned judgment, the ground realities were different. 17. While coming to the conclusion that the respondent as mother was more appropriate to have the custody of the child and under the given circumstances the respondent herein was fully competent to take care of the child, the High Court proceeded with the following discussion: “31. The role of the mother in the development of a child's personality can never be doubted. A child gets the best protection through the mother. It is a most natural thing for any child to grow up in the company of one's mother. The company of the mother is the most natural thing for a child. Neither the father nor any other person can give the same kind of lover, affection, care and sympathies to a child as that of a mother. The company of a mother is more valuable to a growing up female child unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons, a child should not be deprived of the company of the mother. The company of the mother is always in the welfare of the minor child. 32. It may be noticed that the stand of the appellant is that since August 04, 2010 she had been pursuing for the custody of her child. She had also visited the police station and approached the CAW Cell. The company of the mother is always in the welfare of the minor child. 32. It may be noticed that the stand of the appellant is that since August 04, 2010 she had been pursuing for the custody of her child. She had also visited the police station and approached the CAW Cell. It is also admitted position that within 22 days, i.e., on August 26, 2010 the petition for the grant of custody of child was filed by her. Had she abandoned the child of her own she would not have pursued continuously thereafter for getting the custody of the child. Even she had requested the learned Principal Judge, Family Court for interim custody of the child which was given to her in the form of visitation rights thrice in a month and she and her family had been meeting the child during that period. After filing the appeal, the appellant has been taking the interim custody of the child as is stated above. In thes3e circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has not care for the child. Further, respondent is any army Officer. During the course of his service he will be also getting non- family stations and it will be difficult for him to keep the child. Further, even though as per him his parents are looking after the child but when the natural mother is there and has knocked the door of the court without any delay and has all love and affection for the child and is willing to do her duty with all love and affection and since the birth of the child she has been keeping the child. In these circumstances, she should not be deprived of her right especially considering the tender age and child being a girl child. The grandparents cannot be a substitute for natural mother. There is no substitute for mother's love in this world. The grandparents are old. Old age has its own problems. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the welfare of the child lies with the mother, i.e, appellant who is educated, working and earning a good salary and after school hours has ample time to spend with the child. There is no substitute for mother's love in this world. The grandparents are old. Old age has its own problems. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the welfare of the child lies with the mother, i.e, appellant who is educated, working and earning a good salary and after school hours has ample time to spend with the child. In these circumstances, impugned order is set aside and the request of the appellant for the grant of custody of the said child to her being natural mother is allowed and the appellant is also appointed as guardian of her child being a natural guardian/mother.” 18. The aforesaid observations, contained in para 31 of the order of the High Court extracted above, apply with greater force today, when Saesha is 8 years' old child. She is at a crucial phase when there is a major shift in thinking ability which may help her to understand cause and effect better and think about the future. She would need regular and frequent contact with each parent as well as shielding from parental hostility. Involvement of both parents in her life and regular school attendance are absolutely essential at this age for her personality development. She would soon be able to establish her individual interests and preferences, shaped by her own individual personality as well as experience. Towards this end, it also becomes necessary for parents to exhibit model good behaviour and set healthy and positive examples as much and as often as possible. It is the age when her emotional development may be evolving at a deeper level than ever before. In order to ensure that she achieves stability and maturity in her thinking and is able to deal with complex emotions, it is necessary that she is in the company of her mother as well, for some time. This Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that there have been strong feelings of bitterness, betrayal, anger and distress between the appellant and the respondent, where each party feels that they are 'right' in many of their views on issues which led to separation. The intensity of negative feeling of the appellant towards the respondent would have obvious effect on the psyche of Saesha, who has remained in the company of her father, to the exclusion of her mother. The intensity of negative feeling of the appellant towards the respondent would have obvious effect on the psyche of Saesha, who has remained in the company of her father, to the exclusion of her mother. The possibility of appellant's effort to get the child to give up her own positive perceptions of the other parent, i.e., the mother and change her to agree with the appellant's view point cannot be ruled out thereby diminishing the affection of Saesha towards her mother. Obviously, the appellant, during all this period, would not have said anything about the positive traits of the respondent. Even the matrimonial discord between the two parties would have been understood by Saesha, as perceived by the appellant. Psychologist term it as 'The Parental Alienation Syndrome'[4]. It has at least two psychological destructive effects: (i) First, it puts the child squarely in the middle of a contest of loyalty, a contest which cannot possibly be won. The child is asked to choose who is the preferred parent. No matter whatever is the choice, the child is very likely to end up feeling painfully guilty and confused. This is because in the overwhelming majority of cases, what the child wants and needs is to continue a relationship with each parent, as independent as possible from their own conflicts. (ii) Second, the child is required to make a shift in assessing reality. One parent is presented as being totally to blame for all problems, and as someone who is devoid of any positive characteristics. Both of these assertions represent one parent's distortions of reality. 19. The aforesaid discussion leads us to feel that continuous company of the mother with Saesha, for some time, is absolutely essential. It may also be underlying that the notion that a child's primary need is for the care and love of its mother, where she has been its primary care giving parent, is supported by a vast body of psychological literature. Empirical studies show that mother infant “bonding” begins at the child's birth and that infants as young as two months old frequently show signs of distress when the mother is replaced by a substitute caregiver. An infant typically responds preferentially to the sound of its mother's voice by four weeks, actively demands her presence and protests her absence by eight months, and within the first year has formed a profound and enduring attachment to her. An infant typically responds preferentially to the sound of its mother's voice by four weeks, actively demands her presence and protests her absence by eight months, and within the first year has formed a profound and enduring attachment to her. Psychological theory hypothesizes that the mother is the center of an infant's small world, his psychological homebase, and that she “must continue to be so for some years to come.” Developmental psychologists believe that the quality and strength of this original bond largely determines the child's later capacity to fulfill her individual potential and to form attachments to other individuals and to the human community.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. It is also pertinent to note that the interim arrangement made by the Coordinate Bench was in view of the fact that the child Om was studying in the school and in the midst of the term, it was in the interest of the child, that he would continue his study at the same school. 12. Keeping the above referred observations in consideration, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has committed no error in handing over the custody of the Child Om to the mother and therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Interim relief is hereby vacated. In view of disposal of main appeal, civil applications also stand disposed of. 12.1 The Record and Proceedings be returned back to the concerned trial court forthwith. 13. At this stage, the request of the learned advocate for the appellant to stay this judgment is refused.