Bombay High Court Rules Indian Law Does Not Recognise Compulsory Joint Parenting
The Bombay High Court has ruled that Indian law does not recognise the concept of compulsory joint parenting, holding that the welfare of the child must remain the paramount consideration in all custody disputes. Justice Gauri Godse made the observations on September 1 while setting aside a Family Court order that had directed the joint parenting of a 14-year-old boy by his estranged parents in Mumbai.
The High Court clarified that the statutory framework governing child custody and guardianship in India contains no legal requirement for equal parenting or a strict 50:50 division of time between parents. The court emphasized that parents' legal rights can never override the best interests and welfare of the child.
The case stems from a dispute between a Mumbai couple who had previously divorced by mutual consent. Over several years, the parties entered into various consent terms concerning the custody of and access to their son. In 2019, the father was granted sole custody, with the mother later receiving access rights and custody during 50 percent of the child's school vacations.
In September 2024, the Family Court altered that arrangement by ordering joint parenting, designating the child’s ordinary residence to be with the mother. Both parents subsequently challenged different aspects of that directive before the High Court.
Reviewing the matter, Justice Godse noted that while the 14-year-old boy felt affection for both parents and expressed a desire to spend time with each of them, the Family Court had failed to examine whether a joint parenting arrangement was practical under the specific circumstances. The High Court observed that a joint or shared parenting plan cannot simply be imposed without granting both parties a meaningful opportunity to present their respective cases and lead evidence.
The court further observed that a rigid 50:50 division of a child's time between separated parents may not always be practical and carries the potential to foster further conflict. According to the court, a viable joint parenting plan requires each parent to hold a meaningful role in decision-making, ensuring the child receives sufficient and high-quality time with both.
Justice Godse stressed that any such arrangement must keep the child's education, health, extracurricular activities, and emotional stability at the centre of the decision.
Setting aside the Family Court’s September 2024 order, the High Court restored the mother’s application for fresh consideration and directed the lower court to hear both sides and permit evidence if required. Under an interim arrangement ordered until a final decision is reached, physical custody of the boy will remain with the mother. The father was granted alternate-weekend overnight access as well as temporary custody during portions of the Diwali, Christmas, and summer school holidays. Both parents were instructed to share the child's educational and medical expenses equally.
