The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of considering the welfare of the child, the roles and responsibilities of both parents, and the need for simultaneous association with both parents in determining custody arrangements.

1. The order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai, in respect of directing the joint parenting plan by handing over six months custody of the child to each parent is challenged in this appeal.

2. The petitioner/father is a Surgeon and the mother is working as a nurse. They got married on 10.10.2008. It was an intercaste and a love marriage, which was not approved by the parents of the mother. The child Mukta was born on 8.10.2009.

3. Ms.Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Court in its order had directed the parents to submit a joint parenting plan. She argued that the adopting joint parenting plan is a voluntary act of the parents. It cannot be directory. However there was a specific direction given by the Court so a joint parenting plan was submitted by both the parents and therefore the learned Judge ought not to have construed that the submission of such joint parenting plan was a consensual act of the parents. She submitted that the correct method was not adopted by the learned trial Judge to take forward the idea of joint parenting plan which is based on the report of the Law Commission submitted on 25.5.2015. It is submitted that the learned Judge has described the Law Commission report which was published on 25.5.2015 as an oven fresh report. However, after going through the Law Commission report, it appears that the learned Judge could not give himself time to deliberate upon it as the order was passed immediately i.e., on 27.5.2015.

4. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out various suggestions of the Law Commission which are mentioned therein and referred to in the order. In clause 5.8, the Law Commission has stated about crystallisation of the Rules as per the requirement of the child. It has proposed amendments in the Guardians and Wards Act. Then, in Chapter 11A of the Law Commission report, parameters are given by the Law Commission in respect of the custody issue of the child. These are also referred to in para 14 of the judgment. She submitted that though these are referred to, they are not properly considered by the learned Judge. She further pointed out paragraphs 106, 107 and 108 and also clauses 3.3.4 and 3.3.5 and in paragraph 3.5, in which the Law Commission has expressed that considering the prevailing distribution of roles assigned to the parents by the Indian society, the idea of shared custody may not be possible and the Court needs to weigh the circumstances accordingly. She pointed out that the learned Judge has straightaway divided the custody for six months between the father and the mother which is not at all good for a healthy upbringing of the child, who is more attached to the father. It is necessary for the Court to consider a degree of comfort of the child which is completely ignored by the learned trial Judge. The Law Commission has expressed that if at all the non-custodial parent relocates himself / herself where the school of the child is situated then it would be the material fact for considering joint custody. In the present case, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the mother has relocated herself and has started residing at Chembur near the school of the child and the residence of the father. However, the Family Court should have considered what is the duration of the relocation, whether it is on the leave and licence, whether that residence is going to be available to the mother so that the child can stay there comfortably with the mother, etc. The suggestions of the parenting plan are required to be read in proper perspective. The Law Commission never intended shifting custody directly by 50% between the parents. While granting the custody, the Court has to consider the element of stability so also the element of inter-spacing with both the parents.

5. She further submitted that the learned Judge has shown concern about making financial provision for the child. However, the arrangement made by the learned