Karnataka High Court Asks All Family Courts To Use Term ‘Parenting Time’ Instead Of 'Visitation’

The High Court rendered such findings and passed such directions while considering a child custody matter.

The Single Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti held, “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.”

Advocate Anita Abraham represented the Petitioner while Advocate Anushree A represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Trial Court had passed an order granting visitation to the father on every Saturday and Sunday for 3 to 4 hours, till the disposal of the petition and also granted interim custody to the extent of 50% of vacations. He was also entitled to call the minor son through WhatsApp or other communication device for about 30 minutes, on alternate days subject to prior intimation to the mother.

Reasoning

Dealing with the issue of the language employed in judicial proceedings concerning custody, the Bench noted that the Courts often use the word "visitation" to describe the time the child spends with a parent who is non-custodial.

“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”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the parties have been living separately since 2017 and the boy is 9 years old. It was further noted that the father last saw the boy when he was 3 months old, and several proceedings were pending between the parties. The Family Court had already granted a divorce, but the same had been questioned by the father.

The Bench further stated, “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.”

Thus, the Bench held that the boy needs to have the love and affection of both the parents, and it is the duty of the Court, in the welfare of the child, to see how this can be worked out. Considering that the father is working in Chennai and the mother is staying in Bangalore, the Bench held that the Court had rightly permitted the father to communicate with the boy. The Bench thus ordered, “The father can have the parenting time with the child on 02.10.2026 and 03.10.2026. On those days, the father can pickup the child from mother's place at 10.00 a.m. and drop him back at 2.00 p.m.”

The matter has now been listed on October 15, 2026.

Cause Title: A v. B (Case No.: WP 26703/2026)

Click here to read/download Order