Mumbai: Setting aside the verdict of a Mumbai family court that allowed an estranged couple joint parenting, the Bombay HC has held that Indian statutory framework governing child custody and guardianship does not recognise the concept of joint parenting.
According to reports, the court has observed that the welfare of the child, rather than parental rights, must remain the paramount consideration while dealing with such disputes.
The observation was made by a single-judge bench of Justice Gauri Godse. It said courts must exercise their discretionary powers based on a child’s entitlement to the love, affection and care of both parents. The family court had also ordered the couple to spend 50:50 vacation time with their 14-year-old son.
“There is no compelling equal parenting, and the legal foundation in Indian law is the welfare of the minor child and therefore parents’ legal rights can never override the child’s welfare,” Justice Godse said, as quoted in an HT report.
The couple resides at different places in Powai. They had secured a divorce by mutual consent after filing consent terms. The consent terms reportedly covered residential arrangements for the wife and the 14-year-old boy and monthly maintenance for him. Under the consent terms, the child was to ordinarily reside with his mother. The terms also specified that the child would spend half of his school vacations in the company of his father.
But later, disputes arose between them over the custody of their only child in 2024. The Family Court decided the mother’s custody plea, holding that both parents were entitled to joint parenting.
According to the Family Court’s order, the mother was made responsible for the custody, care, safety and security of the child during his ordinary stay with her, as well as for the child’s maintenance expenses and 50% of his educational expenses. The father was held responsible for paying 50% of the child’s school fees and educational expenses.
Aggrieved by the order, both parents had approached the high court. They questioned parts of the joint parenting plan “imposed” by the Family Court. According to the reports, the Family Court judge had considered the son’s interest. During his personal interaction with the Family Court judge, the son had expressed his wish to be with both parents and that he wanted to see both of them happy.
