Back
Karnataka High Court Directs Registry to Furnish Child Custody Rule Committee Proceedings
The on Wednesday directed its Registry to place before it the proceedings of the concerning the framing of formal rules based on child custody guidelines adopted by the . The direction came from a comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda, who are hearing a petition on the need for uniform and properly implemented guidelines for child custody in the state.
The Court also raised a critical procedural concern: the time consumed when parties in custody disputes are referred for psychological evaluation by external experts. It suggested that such evaluations could instead be conducted in-house with the assistance of experts, potentially speeding up the resolution of sensitive family matters.
Background: The Push for Formal Guidelines
The petition, registered as WP 24360/2023, was initiated by the High Court itself to address the absence of formal, binding rules governing child custody and access in Karnataka. For years, family courts and trial courts in the state have relied on ad hoc procedures, leading to inconsistencies in orders and prolonged litigation.
In
, the High Court had taken an interim step: it directed all trial courts in Karnataka to follow the
"Child Access & Custody Guidelines along with Parenting Plan 2025"
that were approved by the
. These guidelines provide a structured framework for determining custody, visitation rights, and parenting plans, with an emphasis on the
. However, the Court made clear that this was a stopgap measure until the
could draft formal rules tailored to Karnataka's judicial landscape.
Key Developments: The September 16 Hearing
When the matter was called on Wednesday, the Court wasted no time in seeking an update.
"What happened after the first consultation of the Rule Committee?"
the Bench orally asked, signalling its impatience with the pace of progress.
Senior Counsel , who was appointed as in the case, submitted that the Court could direct the Registrar General to furnish a detailed report on the committee's work. The Bench noted that a prior direction to the Registrar General had already been issued, and it now wanted concrete evidence of follow-up.
It was then submitted that the had convened a meeting on . The Court accordingly directed the Registry to obtain the proceedings of that meeting, along with details of the steps taken by the Committee thereafter and the date notified for its next meeting.
"...It is submitted that
has convened a meeting on
. Get instructions on the proceedings and the steps taken by the committee and the date notified for the next meeting. List after 3 weeks,"
the Court ordered.
Court's Observations on Psychological Evaluations
Beyond the procedural timeline, the Bench turned its attention to a practical bottleneck in custody cases: the time taken for psychological evaluation of parties. When a court refers a parent or child for evaluation by an external psychologist or psychiatrist, the process often takes weeks or months, delaying the final hearing.
The Court observed that sending parties for such evaluation and waiting for reports consumes valuable judicial time and prolongs the emotional turmoil for families. It suggested that, where psychological evaluation is required, it could instead be conducted in-house with the assistance of experts. This would mean the High Court or trial courts could empanel psychologists or counsellors to conduct assessments on the court premises, thereby reducing delays.
This observation is significant because it addresses a recurring complaint from family law practitioners: the lack of swift access to expert opinion in custody disputes. If implemented, the in-house model could become a template for other high courts facing similar challenges.
Legal Analysis: The Need for Uniform Custody Rules
The 's initiative underscores a growing recognition that child custody disputes require a standardized, child-centric approach. The 's guidelines, which serve as the interim model, emphasize factors such as the child's age, the parent's capacity to provide care, the child's wishes (where appropriate), and the importance of maintaining relationships with both parents unless harmful.
However, guidelines are not the same as formal rules. Formal rules, once framed by the and approved by the High Court, would have binding force. They would eliminate the discretion that currently leads to inconsistent orders across different benches. Moreover, formal rules could incorporate provisions for mediation, parenting coordination, and supervised visitation—tools that are often underutilised.
The Court's insistence on obtaining the Committee's proceedings shows its commitment to moving from interim to permanent. The fact that the Committee had a meeting in June 2026 indicates that work is underway, but the Court wants to ensure that the momentum is not lost.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For legal practitioners in Karnataka, the development signals a shift towards more structured family law adjudication. Once the formal rules are in place, lawyers will need to familiarise themselves with new procedures and standards. The interim adoption of the Calcutta guidelines has already begun to change how custody arguments are framed—with greater reliance on parenting plans and psychological reports.
The suggestion for in-house psychological evaluation could also reshape the role of court-connected experts. Currently, private practitioners are often appointed, leading to high costs and variable quality. An in-house system could standardise assessments, reduce expenses, and ensure that reports are submitted promptly.
Furthermore, the case highlights the proactive role high courts can play in improving family justice. By taking up the matter , the has demonstrated that it will not wait for the legislature or the executive to act. This approach may encourage other high courts to review their own custody procedures.
Conclusion
The 's direction to obtain the 's proceedings is a clear signal that it expects concrete progress on formal child custody rules. The additional suggestion regarding in-house psychological evaluations reflects a pragmatic understanding of the delays that plague family courts. With the matter listed after three weeks, the legal community will be watching closely for the Committee's report and the Court's next steps. The ultimate goal—binding, child-friendly custody guidelines for Karnataka—is now closer than ever.
