Supreme Court Discusses Concept Of 'Parental Alienation Syndrome' In Child Custody Dispute

The Supreme Court has discussed the concept of "Parental Alienation Syndrome(PAS)" in a judgment delivered in a case between an estranged couple for the custody of their children.

PAS is a syndrome whereby one parent, who has custody of the child, promotes feelings of disaffection against the other parent in the mind of the child, which ultimately influences the child's preference for one parent in a court litigation for custody.

"Parental alienation” is not a syndrome capable of being diagnosed, but a process of manipulation of children perpetrated by one parent against the other through, what are termed as, “alienating behaviours”. It is, fundamentally, a question of fact," the Court quoted from a judgment delivered by an English Court i.e., the High Court of Justice Family Division in Re C ('parental alienation'; instruction of expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam).

The judgment also quoted from the discussion in the precedent Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 regarding the psychological effects of PAS on children :

i) First, it puts the child squarely in the middle of a contest of loyalty, a contest which cannot possibly be won. The child is asked to choose who is the preferred parent. No matter whatever is the choice, the child is very likely to end up feeling painfully guilty and confused. This is because in the overwhelming majority of cases, what the child wants and needs is to continue a relationship with each parent, as independent as possible from their own conflicts.

(ii) Second, the child is required to make a shift in assessing reality. One parent is presented as being totally to blame for all problems, and as someone who is devoid of any positive characteristics. Both of these assertions represent one parent's distortions of reality.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma made this discussion in the context of addressing the argument of one of the contesting spouses that the children were expressing preference for the other parent because of the feelings of estrangement instilled in them,

In this context, the bench reiterated that the Courts must not readily infer PAS on the part of one parent.

"Courts ought not to prematurely and without identification of individual instances of 'alienating behaviour', label any parent as propagator and / or potential promoter of such behaviour. The aforesaid label has far-reaching implications which must not be imputed or attributed to an individual parent routinely"

"Accordingly, it is our considered opinion that Courts must endeavour to identify individual instances of 'alienating behaviour' in order to invoke the principle of parental alienation so as to overcome the preference indicated by the minor children."

In the instant case, on facts, the Court held that the appellant could not have been said to have engaged in "parent alienating behaviour".

The Court also reiterated the principle that the principal consideration whilst deciding an application for guardianship under the Act in the exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction would be the 'welfare' of the minor children.

The judgment explained that the matter should be decided on the basis of a holistic and all-encompassing approach including inter alia (i) the socio- economic and educational opportunities which may be made available to the Minor Children; (ii) healthcare and overall- wellbeing of the children; (iii) the ability to provide physical surroundings conducive to growing adolescents but also take into consideration the preference of the Minor Children as mandated under Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act .

Case : Col. Ramneesh Pal Singhv v. Sugandhi Aggarwal

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 356

Click here to read the judgment