The Karnataka High Court has recently directed all Family Courts and courts dealing with Guardianship and Wards matters in the State to substitute the term 'visitation' with 'parenting time' during judicial proceedings. The court reasoned that the former term carries an unfortunate suggestion that one parent is merely a 'guest' in the child's life.

The single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti underscored that no parent is a visitor in the life of a child.

“….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….”, the court said.

The court further said that children attribute their own positioning at times from the conduct of the adults and the words of court

“…. 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..”, the court opined.

The court added that it was a 'high time for a small change in the language employed in judicial proceedings.

“…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 court ordered.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a mother challenging an order passed by a Family Court, granting the father 50% custody of the child along with a slew of directions.

Turning to the facts of the case, the Court noted the submission of the wife's counsel that the parties have been living separately since 2017, and that the father last saw the boy when he was three months old. Their child is now nine years old, the wife had submitted.

To recap, the Family Court had already granted a divorce, which the father has challenged before the High Court, along with an order in the domestic violence case which is in the wife's favour.

The Court, while considering the matter on merits, also expressed concern over the mechanical manner in which the joint parenting plan adopted by the High Court was being applied by subordinate courts.

“…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…”, the Court observed.

“…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 said.

The Court emphasised that family courts exercising parens patriae jurisdiction in custody matters shall pay more attention to the 'ultimate welfare' of the child involved, over and above the disputes between the parents of the said child.

Though the child needs the love and affection of both parents, even though the mother is the custodial parent as of now, no decision can be taken by the Family Court in a 'hasty manner', the court added.

Though the Family Court could be right in allowing the father in Chennai to communicate with his child, the 30-minute timeline prescribed for the same was not feasible, the court noted.

“….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”, the Court said.

In light of the above, the Court stayed the operation of the order passed by the Family Court while making specific arrangement to facilitate interaction between the father and the child till then. The 'parenting time 'prescribed for the father would be for a few hours on 02.10.2026 and 03.10.2026 wherein he is allowed to have the custody of the child physically.

The matter will be heard again on October 15.