The court highlighted the paramount importance of the child's welfare, ruling for shared parenting rights to foster emotional balance between both parents.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-father of the minor child challenging the interim order dated 01.10.2024 passed on IA.No.15 in G & W No.03/2022 by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru.

2. The respondent-mother had initiated a petition for custody and guardianship of the minor child in G & WC.No.3/2022 against the petitioner-father. In the said proceedings before the Family Court, IA.No.15 came to be filed by the petitioner-father seeking 50% of the custody and visitation rights of the minor child during all Summer, Winter, Diwali and Dasara vacations and any other vacations which the School declares every year.

3. The said application, on contest by the respondent-mother, came to be partly allowed by granting visitation rights; the Family Court granted the visitation rights to the father during Dasara, Diwali, Winter and Summer vacations for continuous three days either in the first half or second half of vacations after discussion with the wife from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. It was also ordered that the petitioner-father shall not take his minor son out of Bengaluru and consequently, other orders were passed with regard to safety, security and welfare of the minor child and for co-operation during the visitation rights. Hence, the petitioner-father has questioned the said order in this petition.

4. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for petitioner-father that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is arbitrary or one sided, which is against the principles of the child parenting rights and welfare and wellbeing of the minor child. It is contended by learned counsel that the minor child is presently aged 4 years and he is going to a Day Care Centre and it is equally essential for the father to have the child custody and visitation rights for proper growth and development of the minor child, physically, psychologically and mentally.

4.1 It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the father is a permanent resident of Hyderabad and mother is residing in Bengaluru along with the minor child. During the proceedings before the Family Court, the father has been travelling from Hyderabad to Bengaluru to visit the minor child and have visitation rights by spending huge amount during weekends and diligently following up all the visitation rights and going back to Hyderabad after spending two days with the minor child in Bengaluru, thereby she contends that the father is showing keen interest in taking care of welfare and well being of the minor child. When such being the case, it is also the requirement of the child to have the love, attention, care and close relationship with the father for proper growth and development in the formative and later years.

4.2 Learned counsel vehemently contends that in a child's custody case, the welfare of the child is primary importance and the equal child parenting time is required to be granted by the Court and it cannot be one sided by granting the entire custody to the mother and only few hours of visitation rights to the father, which does not augur well with the child parenting rights as per several judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. Learned counsel further contends that these crucial aspects of co-parenting, shared parenting and equal custody and visitation rights to the father and the mother has been ignored by learned Family Judge, while passing the impugned order on IA.No.15.

4.3 It is further contended by learned counsel that the minor child is presently goin