Shared Parenting May Be Beneficial But Not Suitable For Every Family: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court’s Order In Child Custody Case

The Jharkhand High Court remarked that the shared parenting may be beneficial but it is not suitable for every family, especially in cases of extreme conflict.

The Court was hearing two connected Appeals, one filed by the wife against the Judgment by which shared parenting was ordered by the Family Court and the other filed by the husband against the denial of the prayer for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed, “It requires to refer herein that high conflict between parents can negatively impact a child in shared parenting, and courts consider this risk, prioritizing a child's welfare above all else. The shared parenting may be beneficial but it is not suitable for every family, especially in cases of extreme conflict which is the case herein. Further It is not healthy for a child to move between two homes and a stable, anchored home is the best option in relation to his/her study and other future prospects.”

The Bench said that one parent might try to force the child to take sides, a phenomenon known as parental alienation, which is harmful to the child's relationship with the other parent.

Advocate Rajesh Lala represented the Appellant, while Advocate Niharika Mazumdar represented the Respondent.

Case Background

It was the case of the husband (Plaintiff) that the marriage was solemnized in 2011 according to the Hindu Religion, Rites, and Customs including the 'Saptpadi' and the marriage of parties was registered in the office of Marriage Sub Registrar, Deoghar also. In course of time, a son and a baby was born from the wedlock in 2012 and 2017, respectively. The husband had purchased two flats in name of his wife. He alleged that his wife always abused him in very slang language and used to assault him with utensils. He further alleged that his old mother and father were also being humiliated and abused by the wife in very filthy language.

Hence, he filed a Suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which was disposed of in 2019 on the basis of compromise. Thereafter, he filed a suit for divorce and the cause of action for filing the said suit arose. On the other hand, the wife claimed that her husband was under the ill advise of his parents, sister and other relatives and completely failed to perform his duty as a guardian. She also alleged that he never played a role of responsible father, nor he met the expenditure of her and her children. According to her, if the children are handed over to the husband, their life will spoil. Vide the impugned Judgment, the Family Court disposed of the suit in the light of arrangement made for ‘shared parenting’ of children.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “On consideration of the evidence, the learned Family Judge has come to conclusion that the appellant-husband has miserably failed to establish the ground of cruelty against the respondent-wife. … On consideration of the finding recorded by the learned Family Court as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, which according to our considered view, is based upon the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, upon which, the finding has been recorded, therefore, no element of perversity in the impugned judgment has been found, as per the discussion made hereinabove.”

The Court was of the view that the Family Court’s Judgment is not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary, as would be evident from the impugned Judgment.

“This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 26.09.2022 and the decree dated 11.10.2022 passed in Original Suit No.101 of 2019 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar need no interference”, it added.

The Court emphasised that the consideration governing the custody of children is the welfare of the children and not the rights of the parties and the welfare of child is determined neither by economic affluence nor a deep mental or emotional concern for the well-being of the child.

“The answer depends on the balancing of all these factors and determining what is best for child's total well-being”, it further remarked.

The Court said that the Family Court was fully aware about the strained relationship between the parties and the factual aspect related to the strained relationship between the parties has fully been substantiated by the statement of grand-mother of the children who herself has stated in her testimony that five cases are going on between the parties.

“Further the learned Family Court has observed that petitioner/husband (respondent herein) has no knowledge about the school fee/fee receipt of his children. Further as per the pleading of the appellant as pleaded in the memo of appeal it is evident that the petitioner/husband (respondent herein) has not paid the maintenance amount to his children which was directed to be paid by the Family Court in the Maintenance case no. 73 of 2019, i.e., Rs. 5000/ to the boy child and Rs. 3000/- to the daughter child and this fact itself shows that petitioner/husband (respondent herein) has no serious concern about the well-being of his children”, it observed.

The Court also noted that in absence of husband (father) from his house, a lady will be needed to look-after the children after their returning from school and further to assist them in their study also but admittedly the husband is the only son of his family and thus it is quite natural that after going on his shop, only his old mother and father will remain available in his house and no other lady will be available to look after the children.

“Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that while passing the arrangement of “Shared parenting” the learned Family Court has not taken into consideration of its own finding that the petitioner (respondent herein) has paucity of time due to his nature of business and even then has passed order of “shared parenting” which is contrary to its own finding as quoted and referred hereinabove”, it added.

Moreover, the Court said that since relationship between parties are not in right shape and there are five cases going on between the parties, as such there is high-conflict relationship between parents which can lead to instability, increased anxiety, and poor health outcomes for the child and low-quality parental relationships can disrupt a child's routines, even with a shared parenting plan.

Conclusion

The Court reiterated that it is not the welfare of the father, nor the welfare of the mother, that is the paramount consideration for the Court, rather it is the welfare of the minor and of the minor alone which is the paramount consideration.

“The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as its physical well-being. Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases”, it further noted.

The Court remarked that the father is the natural guardian as stipulated in the statute but the paramount consideration in the matter of handing over the custody of the child is "welfare of the child".

“… this Court is of the considered view that the arrangement of “share parenting” as ordered by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Deoghar is not sustainable”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Appeals, quashed the relief of shared parenting, refused to grant dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, and permitted the husband to have visitation right.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:34929-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Rajesh Lala and Kumar Nishant.

Respondent: Advocate Niharika Mazumdar

Click here to read/download the Judgment