Parenting Time – Karnataka HC humanizes “Visiting Rights” Term
Order dated 29.9.2026 of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.26958 of 2026
Karnataka HC Humanizes Child Visiting Terminology to Parenting Time
No Parent is a Visitor to a Child – Rethinking “Visitation” Rights
- Before proceeding with the merits of the present case, this Court feels that it is high time for a small change in the language employed in judicial proceedings. In matters concerning custody, Courts often use the word “visitation” to describe the time the child spends with a parent who is a non-custodial parent. The term is familiar, but it carries an unfortunate suggestion that one parent is part of the child’s life while the other merely visits. A child should not be made to understand the relationship through the word “visitation,” which is used for someone who arrives and leaves as a guest. Children read the conduct of adults and sometimes the words of Courts to understand where they belong. Calling it parenting time recognizes a simple truth that no parent is a visitor in the life of a child. Though a change in terminology does not decide questions of custody, when a Court imposes restrictions on the access to the child, the word “parenting” is more humane. 3. Henceforth, all Family Courts and courts dealing with G&WC matters shall use the term “parenting time” in place of “visitation”. The concerned shall issue administrative instructions so that, while filing an application, the parties shall seek “parenting time” instead of “visitation”. The Registrar General shall communicate this order to all the Family Courts and other Courts dealing with G&WC matters. He shall also issue a circular in this regard. 4. Coming back to the facts of the present case, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that the parties are living separately since 2017. The boy is now 9 years old. It is also an admitted fact that the father last saw the boy when he was 3 months old, and several proceedings are pending between the parties. The Family Court had already granted a divorce. The father has questioned the judgment before this Court, and it is pending consideration. Even in the DV case, an order was passed in favor of the wife, that is also questioned by the husband/father. It is submitted that, in these facts and circumstances, the Court ought not to have passed an order of this nature.
- The Karnataka High Court has adopted the joint parenting plan. After the parenting plan is adopted by the High Court, unfortunately, the Courts without even referring to the facts of the case, interacting with the children, are simply adopting the guidelines/suggestion as stated in the joint parenting plan. This approach of the Courts is not in the interest of the child. Particularly, in family disputes and child custody matters, there cannot be any straitjacket formula. As the Courts are dealing with the emotions, lives of parents and children, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case where the father is regularly in touch with the boy and the Court passes an order, it is a different case. But in this case, the father had not even seen the child from the last 9 years and the Court passes an order that he is entitled for 50% custody of the child and a slew of directions are issued. The Court cannot pass an order without any discussion about the disputes between the parties, without even interacting with the child without discussing the feasibility of the arrangement, which are not in the best interest of the child. The Courts in custody matters are exercising the parens patriae jurisdiction and shall be more concerned with the ultimate welfare of the child, rather than the disputes between the wife and husband.
- In this case, the custodial parent is the mother. Whatever are the disputes between the parties, the boy needs to have the love and affection of both the parents. It is the duty of the Court in the welfare of the Child to see that how this can be worked out. But not in such a hasty manner. The father is working in Chennai. The mother is staying at Bangalore. The Court has rightly permitted the father to communicate with the boy. However, the 30 minutes time that is fixed by the Court, is not practically possible to implement, as nobody can compel the child to sit for half an hour and speak with the father.
