Karnataka High Court has adopted the Calcutta High Court’s Child Access and Custody Guidelines 2025 as an interim measure. The move ensures uniform, child-centric custody practices until the Union Government issues national guidelines.
BENGALURU: In a landmark development in child custody jurisprudence, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has adopted the Child Access and Custody Guidelines along with Parenting Plan 2025 framed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. This adoption will remain in force across the State of Karnataka until the Government of India finalises and notifies its own proposed national guidelines.
The decision has been passed in Writ Petition No. WP 24360/2023, marking an important step towards uniform, child-centric custody and access mechanisms.
As per the order dated 15 December 2025, the Karnataka High Court took note of the fact that the Calcutta High Court had earlier framed comprehensive guidelines after extensive consultations with stakeholders including District Judges, Judicial Academy members, the State Government, child psychologists and other experts.
The Karnataka High Court has now directed that these same guidelines be circulated and applied across the State, including Family Courts and Magistrates dealing with matters under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The background to this development goes back to earlier hearings in the matter. In the last hearing, the Union Government on 27 February 2025 informed the Karnataka High Court that it was in the process of framing guidelines to be followed while determining issues of child custody and that it would positively come out with them within two to three months.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun recorded the submission, stating:
“Advocate Sadhana Desai appearing for the Union of India informed the court that it (UoI) is seized with the task of framing guidelines on the very subject and views of the State Governments and Union Territories are being solicited. It was stated that within 2 to 3 months the guidelines are likely to be finalised.”
Following this assurance, the Court directed the Union Government to file an affidavit placing on record the timeline and the process proposed to be undertaken for finalising the guidelines, and the matter was posted for further hearing on March 19.
The writ petition and the material placed before the Court highlighted the growing complexity of custody disputes, especially in the context of cross-border migration and increasing personal conflicts between adults. It was pointed out that traditional methods of dispute resolution are no longer effective in many cases.
The petition clearly stated:
“At the epicenter of complicated family conflicts are children who get stuck in custodial battles. Custodial battles more often have to do with the bruised egos and adamant attitudes of adults than with concern for the child’s wellbeing.”
The plea strongly emphasised that children require a safe, stable and nurturing environment to grow into healthy and responsible adults. It noted that while most custody disputes arise from separation or dissolution of marriage, courts are also frequently faced with situations involving relocation, abandonment, neglect, abuse, mental health issues, and cases where parents are psychologically, financially or physically unfit to care for their children.
It also drew attention to custody claims raised by grandparents, aunts, uncles and even community members. As stated in the petition:
“The most common cases of custody that the courts of law deal with are from separations or dissolutions of marriage. However, courts are also confronted by cases of relocation, abandonment, neglect, abuse, mental health concerns, parents who are psychologically/financially/physically unfit to care for their children, other relatives such as grandparents/aunts/uncles/community members claiming custody, etc.”
Another critical issue flagged before the Court was the lack of uniformity in the definition of “natural guardian” across different personal laws. The petition stressed that this inconsistency often leads to arbitrary outcomes and that courts must properly assess the psyche and best interests of the child before granting custody.
The plea further urged the Government to consolidate existing laws and best practices into structured guidelines supported by scientific and professional knowledge relating to child psychology. It suggested the creation of expert-driven mechanisms to assist courts in evaluating the child’s best interests. In this context, the petition stated:
“The guidelines may recommend how to correctly weigh the various other considerations that are placed before the court, and arrive at a conclusive solution that is best for the child, and fairest for the involved adults…The Child must not feel any form of parental alienation at the behest of an ongoing custody battle…The guidelines may incorporate such modern channels of communication into custody orders as well, rather than limiting relief to physical meetings”
highlighting the need for modern, realistic and child-friendly solutions.
The responsibility of the custodial parent or guardian was also clearly underlined. The petition made it explicit that custody is not merely about physical control but about ensuring holistic welfare.
It stated:
“The custodian must ensure complete well-being of children and must enable the child/children to have easy access to their rights such as right to education, right to food, right to shelter, right to sanitation, right to healthcare etc. The custodian must at all cost protect the welfare of the child, if the same is not ensured a cascading effect will wreak devastating consequences on the growth and development of the child. Hence it is necessary for guidelines to ensure that the custodian is held accountable for the well-being of the child.”
Taking note of these concerns, the Karnataka High Court has now chosen to adopt the Calcutta High Court’s Child Access and Custody Guidelines 2025 as an interim framework. The Court has directed that these guidelines be placed before its own Rule Committee for examination and necessary modifications, while also ensuring their immediate circulation and application across all relevant courts in the State. This arrangement will continue until formal rules are framed and approved in accordance with law.
This case stands as a crucial step towards uniformity, accountability and a genuinely child-centric approach in custody and access matters in India.
UPDATE
It has been clarified by parties involved that the Child Access & Custody Guidelines adopted by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court are modified and authored by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court itself, after considering suggestions from multiple stakeholders, and are not exclusively authored by any single organisation.
The proceedings before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court were initiated suo moto by the Court, and organisations including AIFCR (All India Federation of Child Rights) were subsequently impleaded. The pleadings seeking adoption of the guidelines were accepted by the Hon’ble Court.
The article stands updated to reflect this clarification.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Legal Framework Referred in the Case
| Law / Legal Instrument | Section / Aspect | Explanation | Relevance in This Case |
| Constitution of India | Article 226 (Implied) | Empowers High Courts to issue writs, directions and orders | The petition is a writ petition (WP) through which the High Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction |
| Child Access and Custody Guidelines with Parenting Plan, 2025 | Entire Guidelines | Structured framework dealing with child custody, visitation, access and parenting plans | Adopted by Karnataka High Court as an interim mechanism till formal rules are framed |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Custody-related jurisdiction of Magistrates | Allows Magistrates to pass orders related to custody and visitation of children | Karnataka HC directed that the guidelines be circulated to Magistrates exercising jurisdiction under this Act |
| High Court Rule Making Power | Rule Committee Process | Power of High Courts to frame procedural rules through Rule Committees | The guidelines are to be examined by the Rule Committee for necessary changes before formal adoption |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Jurisdiction of Family Courts | Governs adjudication of family disputes including custody matters | Guidelines to be circulated and applied in Family Courts across Karnataka |
Case Summary
- Case Title: The High Court of Karnataka Versus Union of India & Anr
- Case Number: WP 24360/2023
- CNR Number: KAHC010582082023
- Court: High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru
- Date of Order: 15 December 2025
- Next Date of Hearing: 13 March 2026
Key Operative Directions from the Order
- Child Access and Custody Guidelines along with Parenting Plan 2025 were formulated through stakeholder consultations and accepted earlier by the Calcutta High Court.
- The Karnataka High Court directed that these guidelines be placed before its Rule Committee for considering necessary changes.
- The Registrar General has been directed to circulate the guidelines to all District Judges, Family Courts and Magistrates dealing with matters including those under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
- The Court clarified that “the said guidelines shall be applied till the Rules are made by the Rulemaking Committee and are approved in accordance with law.”
Key Takeaways
- Karnataka High Court has ensured uniform child access and custody rules, reducing arbitrary and biased orders that often isolate fathers from their children.
- Adoption of Calcutta HC Guidelines brings accountability to custodial parents and discourages misuse of custody as a tool for parental alienation.
- Parenting Plan 2025 shifts focus from gender-based assumptions to the child’s actual welfare, indirectly protecting responsible fathers’ rights.
- Guidelines apply even in DV Act proceedings, curbing the routine denial of child access to men merely on the basis of allegations.
- Interim implementation prevents prolonged injustice to fathers while the Government delays national custody guidelines.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.