Introduction:

In a landmark and child-centric intervention, the Karnataka High Court, through a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C. M. Poonacha, has directed that the Child Access & Custody Guidelines along with the Parenting Plan 2025, as approved by the Calcutta High Court, shall be uniformly applied by all trial courts across Karnataka until formal rules are framed and notified by the High Court’s Rule Making Committee. The direction was issued in a suo motu writ petition (WP No. 24360 of 2023) initiated by the High Court itself, taking judicial notice of the increasing complexity of custody disputes in an era marked by cross-border migration, fragmented families, and conflicting personal laws. The Court recognised that children are often the most vulnerable casualties in custody battles arising out of matrimonial discord, domestic violence proceedings, and cross-jurisdictional family disputes. Observing the absence of uniform standards governing child access, custody, and parenting plans across statutes such as the Guardians and Wards Act, personal laws, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Court stepped in to ensure immediate doctrinal clarity and procedural consistency. By directing interim adoption of guidelines that were prepared through extensive stakeholder consultation and expert input under the aegis of the Calcutta High Court, the Karnataka High Court underscored that the best interest of the child is not merely a legal principle but a living standard requiring structured, sensitive, and scientifically informed adjudication.

Background and Context of the Suo Motu Proceedings:

The suo motu petition before the Karnataka High Court was triggered by growing judicial concern over the escalation of personal and custodial conflicts between parents, particularly in cases involving inter-state and cross-border migration, where one parent relocates for employment or personal reasons, often leaving the child in legal limbo. The Court noted that in such disputes, children frequently become subjects of adversarial litigation rather than beneficiaries of protective judicial care. The petition highlighted that there is no uniform definition of “natural guardian” across various personal laws, including Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and secular statutes, leading to inconsistent outcomes and forum shopping. It further emphasised that trial courts often lack structured guidance on how to assess a child’s psychological needs, emotional attachments, and developmental welfare before passing custody or visitation orders. The plea advocated for synthesis of existing laws, judicial precedents, and global best practices into a cohesive framework supported by scientific and professional expertise, including child psychologists and trained counsellors. It also urged the creation of institutional mechanisms to assist courts in evaluating the child’s best interests beyond mere parental claims. Against this backdrop, the Court was informed that the Calcutta High Court had already undertaken a comprehensive and consultative process to frame Child Access and Custody Guidelines along with a Parenting Plan, culminating in their approval on 23 September 2025 for interim application in West Bengal.

Submissions and Standpoint Placed Before the Court:

During the course of hearing, counsel assisting the Court informed the Bench that the Child Access & Custody Guidelines with Parenting Plan 2025 were not ad hoc or unilateral judicial formulations but the outcome of a rigorous participatory process. It was submitted that the Calcutta High Court, while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation on child custody and access, had referred the matter to its Rule Committee, which in turn invited suggestions from District Judges, Directors of the Judicial Academy, child psychologists, mental health professionals, and other relevant stakeholders. Multiple rounds of deliberations were held to incorporate legal, psychological, and sociological perspectives, after which a Sub-Committee was constituted to finalise the framework. The resulting guidelines were formally accepted by the Calcutta High Court with a direction that they be followed until statutory rules were framed and approved. The counsels suggested that Karnataka, facing similar challenges, could benefit from adopting the same framework on an interim basis to ensure uniformity and child-sensitive adjudication. It was contended that such adoption would not amount to abdication of Karnataka High Court’s rule-making power but would serve as a stop-gap normative standard until locally tailored rules were finalised.

Court’s Analysis and Observations:

The Karnataka High Court carefully examined the nature, origin, and purpose of the guidelines framed by the Calcutta High Court and found them to be well-reasoned, inclusive, and grounded in the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare. The Bench noted that the Calcutta High Court had not only recognised the legal vacuum in custody jurisprudence but had proactively bridged it through institutional consultation and expert engagement. The Court observed that similar issues plague family courts and magistrates across Karnataka, particularly in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where child custody and visitation rights frequently arise as ancillary but emotionally charged issues. The Bench emphasised that in the absence of uniform rules, trial courts are often left to exercise unguided discretion, resulting in inconsistent orders that may inadvertently harm the child’s emotional stability. The Court acknowledged that while rule-making is a detailed and time-consuming process requiring institutional approval, children involved in ongoing litigation cannot be made to wait indefinitely for normative clarity. Importantly, the Court clarified that interim application of the guidelines would not override substantive law but would supplement judicial discretion with structured parameters, thereby enhancing predictability, fairness, and sensitivity in custody determinations.

Court’s Directions and Final Judgment:

In its operative directions, the Karnataka High Court ordered that the Child Access & Custody Guidelines along with Parenting Plan 2025 approved by the Calcutta High Court shall be circulated by the Registrar General to all District Judges, Family Courts, and Magistrates in Karnataka exercising jurisdiction over matters relating to child custody, access, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The Court directed that these guidelines shall be applied by all such courts on an interim basis until formal rules are framed by the Karnataka High Court’s Rule Making Committee and approved in accordance with law. Simultaneously, the Bench directed that the guidelines be placed before the Rule Committee for consideration, modification, and eventual incorporation into binding rules tailored to the State’s specific legal and social context. The Court made it clear that this interim adoption is driven solely by the need to protect children caught in custodial conflicts and to ensure that judicial orders are informed by best practices and psychological insights rather than adversarial posturing. By doing so, the Court reaffirmed that the best interest of the child is not subordinate to procedural delays or institutional silos, but is a constitutional and human imperative warranting immediate judicial response.