JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 18.07.2020, passed by learned District Judge (Family Court), Shimla, in case CMP No. 1490 of 2019. 2. Petitioner and respondent are married to each other. Their relations became strained giving rise to multifarious litigations. One of these is the petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The ground pleaded in said petition is “cruelty” 3. During the pendency of the proceedings of divorce petition, petitioner filed an application before learned District Judge (Family Court), Shimla, seeking custody of only girl child of the parties. Respondent opposed the prayer. Learned District Judge (Family Court), Shimla, ruled the custody of child to remain with respondent. However, visitation rights were granted in favour of the petitioner in following terms:- (i) The applicant shall meet the child on second and 4th Sunday of the month at a place mutually agreed by the parties between 12 noon to 4 PM. If for some reason this meeting does not happen on the fixed days, then the applicant can meet on the next Sunday. (ii) The respondent or any other person on her behalf shall produce the child for meeting with the applicant. (iii) The applicant shall ensure that no act, conduct or work which directly or indirectly leads to convey ill feelings towards the respondent or her parents, is exhibited or used in this meeting. (iv) There shall be no attempt on his part to induce or influence mind of the child. After meeting, custody of the child shall be handed over peacefully to the respondent.” 4. Petitioner has taken exception to the impugned order on the following grounds: - (a) The Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent lacked maturity, mental stability, moral character, ability to provide continuing involvement in the community and intimate relationship with girl child etc. (b) The welfare of the child has been compromised by not allowing the prayer of the petitioner. The paternal grand parents of the child have been divested from the love and affection of the child. (c) The pleadings and material on record has not been appreciated in right perspective. (b) The welfare of the child has been compromised by not allowing the prayer of the petitioner. The paternal grand parents of the child have been divested from the love and affection of the child. (c) The pleadings and material on record has not been appreciated in right perspective. (d) The Family Court has based the impugned order on observations drawn from interaction with the parties and the child which amounts to highlighting irrelevant facts and thus, are perverse and erroneous. (e) The Family Court has failed to appreciate that the child was tutored by respondent and such fact was evident from the conduct of the child in the Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. In DSG Vs. AKG (2020) 12 SCC 248 , Hon’ble Supreme Court while placing reliance on judgment passed by that Court in Nil Ratan Kundu Vs. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413 , has highlighted the relevant parameters to be considered while deciding custody issue as under: - “17. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr. v. Abhijit Kundu that while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court is required to give due weight to the ordinary comfort of the child, contentment, intellectual, moral and physical development, health, education and general maintenance, and the favorable surroundings. The Court is not bound either by statutes, nor by strict rules of evidence, nor procedure or precedent. In deciding the issue of custody, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and wellbeing of the child.” 7. Further In Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (2020) 3 SCC 67 , the Supreme Court has underlined the requirement and importance of visitation rights as under:- “22. A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, 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, every reunion may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every reunion 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 the 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 the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights. 23. The concept of visitation rights is not fully developed in India. Most courts while granting custody to one spouse do not pass any orders granting visitation rights to the other spouse. As observed earlier, a child has a human right to have the love and affection of both the 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. 24. Normally, if the parents are living in the same town or area, the spouse who has not been granted custody is given visitation rights over weekends only. In case the spouses are living at a distance from each other, it may not be feasible or in the interest of the child to create impediments in the education of the child by frequent breaks and, in such cases the visitation rights must be given over long weekends, breaks and holidays. In cases like the present one, where the parents are in two different continents, effort should be made to give maximum visitation rights to the parent who is denied custody. 25. In addition to “visitation rights”, “contact rights” are also important for development of the child specially in cases where both parents live in different States or countries. In cases like the present one, where the parents are in two different continents, effort should be made to give maximum visitation rights to the parent who is denied custody. 25. In addition to “visitation rights”, “contact rights” are also important for development of the child specially in cases where both parents live in different States or countries. The concept of contact rights in the modern age would be contact by telephone, e-mail or in fact, we feel the best system of contact, if available between the parties should be video calling. With the increasing availability of internet, video calling is now very common and courts dealing with the issue of custody of children must ensure that the parent who is denied custody of the child should be able to talk to her/his child as often as possible. Unless there are special circumstances to take a different view, the parent who is denied custody of the child should have the right to talk to his/her child for 5-10 minutes every day. This will help in maintaining and improving the bond between the child and the parent who is denied custody. If that bond is maintained, the child will have no difficulty in moving from one home to another during vacations or holidays. The purpose of this is, if we cannot provide one happy home with two parents to the child then let the child have the benefit of two happy homes with one parent each. 8. Discerning the facts of the case in the light of above exposition, in the first place it is worth noticing that the impugned order has the effect of making an interim arrangement only with respect to custody of girl child, who was aged about 4 ½ years at the time of passing of impugned order on 18.07.2020. 9. It is evident from the impugned order that learned Family Court primarily has taken into consideration the following factors: (a) The age of the child; (b) Child had been residing with the respondent; (c) The longevity of the dispute between petitioner and respondent being not that long so as to negate the possibility of reproachment; (d) The observations of the Court after interaction with the child as also with the litigating parties. 10. 10. As per learned Family Court, the order was passed in order to avoid lopsided development of the child and to maintain the balance visitation rights have been allowed in favour of the petitioner. 11. Noticeably, petitioner has not shown any grievance with respect to the nature of visitation right allowed in his favour. His grievance simply is that respondent is not fit to keep the custody of the child and petitioner is in a better position to raise and bring up the child. Petitioner has placed reliance on the comparative family circumstances of both the sides. However, in my considered view, petitioner has not been able to establish any glaring incapacity of respondent to bring up the child. There is no challenge to the fact that the child is presently pursuing her studies in Carmel Convent Pre-Primary School, Sector-9, Chandigarh. It is not his case that the expenses for maintaining the child are not borne by respondent. There also is nothing to suggest that the custody of child with respondent is not in the interest of the child. Rather, learned Family Court has specifically observed that the child was happily residing with her mother and had no complaints whatsoever. Such observations were made by learned Family Court after interacting with the child. Petitioner has not been successful in assailing such observations of learned Family Court. 12. Merely because in the opinion of petitioner, he is better equipped to rear the child, it cannot be said that the custody of the child with petitioner will serve her paramount interest. In absence of any proof of incapacity of respondent to serve the best interest of child, the impugned order cannot be labeled as bad in law or perverse. 13. While deciding on the issue of interim custody of child between the litigating spouses, meticulous scanning of comparative assets and liabilities was not required. Learned Family Court has taken due care of the relevant considerations and has passed impugned order, which cannot be said to be unjustified. 14. As noticed above, petitioner has not raised any grievance with respect to the manner in which learned Family Court has allowed visitation rights in his favour. It being so, the impugned order also cannot be said to be harsh upon petitioner. Learned Family Court has proceeded to pass the order by keeping in view the interest and welfare of the child to be paramount. It being so, the impugned order also cannot be said to be harsh upon petitioner. Learned Family Court has proceeded to pass the order by keeping in view the interest and welfare of the child to be paramount. Both the parents have been allowed the contact with the child. Even otherwise, petitioner has not been able to show any imminent need to change the place of residence of the child. The child is being educated at Chandigarh and by allowing her to remain in custody of petitioner at Shimla, in my considered view, the child will be unsettled. Keeping in view the tender age of the child, such an unnecessary transfer of place for her may affect her education and mental growth. 15. The contours of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 are well defined. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to re-appreciate, review evidence or facts taken into consideration by the Court whose orders is sought to be challenged. In this regard reference can be made in Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181 , wherein the Supreme Court held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every 5 error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal [Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 217 ]. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional1 jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional1 jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 16. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 16. Keeping in view the restrictive jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has not found any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Family Court. 17. In result, petition fails and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.