Introduction
The Jharkhand High Court recently overturned a “shared parenting” order. The Court ruled that the welfare of children must come before the father’s status as natural guardian under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The case is titled Jyoti v. Sri Raja Nand Chaudhary.
Facts of the Case
The couple married on June 26, 2011 under Hindu rites and their marriage was registered in Deoghar. They have two children: a son born on August 23, 2012, and a daughter born on September 15, 2017. During matrimonial proceedings, the father sought custody under Section 6 of the Guardianship Act. The Family Court rejected his request and instead granted custody to the mother under a shared parenting arrangement. The father appealed before the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.
What the Court Said
The Bench, consisting of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, held that Section 6 (naming father as “natural guardian” for a boy or unmarried girl) must be read along with Section 13, which makes the welfare of the minor the paramount factor. The Court explained that the word “after” in Section 6(a) should be interpreted to mean “in absence of” the father’s care, to avoid constitutional infirmity. Thus, statutory law itself enshrines balancing of natural-guardian rights with the child’s best interest.
On the facts, the Court observed substantial conflict between parents, there were five separate litigations pending between them. Both children were living with their mother with their maternal grandfather, attending school from there. The son was 12 years old, the daughter 8. The Court said that “shared parenting may be beneficial but it is not suitable for every family, especially in cases of extreme conflict.” It warned that constant movement between two homes can destabilize a child and harm their studies and future prospects.
In view of this, the Court set aside the shared parenting order. It allowed the father visitation rights but ordered that the children stay with their mother.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that courts cannot mechanically apply the “natural guardian = father” rule. Even if a father has legal priority under Section 6, the court must ensure that guardianship serves the child’s welfare under Section 13. High-conflict parental relationships may weigh against shared custody, with stability and continuity preferred over equal time split.
For parents and lawyers, this ruling signals that shared parenting is not automatic or guaranteed. Courts will examine the family’s history, conflict level, living arrangements, and what best supports the child’s development.
This case may also influence other custody disputes, especially where the parents live separately, children already stay with one parent, and there is ongoing litigation or hostility. The child’s welfare remains the guiding light, not legal presumptions.
