A matrimonial relationship is nurtured through love, care and understanding. However, when this relationship turns bitter, the entire equation changes which affects not only the couple but also their families that leaves a trail of misunderstandings leading ultimately to distraught court battles and shattered emotions. The complication further arises when there is a child in between and then begins the complex battle of custody with high conflict dramas, with both parents amplifying even the most trivial incidents in an effort to portray themselves as the more suitable caregiver of the child to win its custody.
Women have an equal right with men in the matters of custody and such has been made transparent in the 133rd Report of the Law Commission, further strengthened by the clear enunciation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geetha Hariharan & Ors v. RBI.[1] The law also mandates that a child of five years shall ordinarily remain with the mother. Psychological theory suggests that the mother is an infant's first home base and the strength of this bond shapes the child's ability to reach its potential and form future attachments.[2]
However, whatever rights have been granted and recognised by the legal pretexts in favour of the father and of the mother with respect to the minor child, the core thread which runs in every custody and guardianship litigation is the 'welfare of the child' and in looking towards the 'welfare of the child', the parental sentiments and interests carry least significance.[3]
A litigation of broken hearts is greatly devastating but equally devastating are the Parental alienating behaviours which are usually considered a complex cluster of strategies used by alienating parents (usually the custodial parent) to damage and sever the relationship between the child and the child's other parent. In the emotional aftermath of a broken relationship, an alienating parent may cling to their child as a source of comfort and stability and be possessive about him/her, leading to parentectomy or cutting the other parent out of the child's life. Often unaware of how these behaviors might be perceived, they unintentionally place their own needs above the child's, which can result in more harm than good for the child's long-term wellbeing.
The term 'Parental Alienation Syndrome' (PAS) was first introduced in 1985 by Dr. Richard Gardner, a child psychiatrist who worked extensively in child custody disputes.[4] Through his observations, he identified recurring patterns wherein a child displayed unwarranted hostility, alienation, or denigration towards one parent.
Parental Alienation (PA) has been observed in child custody matters before courts throughout different countries as in the USA, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, France, Italy, Israel, Australia, Portugal etc.[5] Although none of these countries except Brazil have a specific law on PA with penal consequences, countries like Mexico also consider it to be a crime and Italian Courts had even imposed fines on parents involved in such behaviours. Family courts across these countries frequently recognize, accept, and intervene in cases involving parental alienation behavior, and in all such situations the best interest of the child is always prioritised. PA has also been termed as a gender-based violence against women and children in Caribbean and Latin America and it has been deployed in custody disputes to punish mothers who seek to protect their children from abusive fathers.[6]
In India, the terminology is slowly being accepted as a cause of concern and behavioural irregularity and courts are alive to that. While the expression does not appear prominently in the custody orders, the existence of such behaviour can be clearly identified. The Supreme Court had discussed and acknowledged PAS in Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh[7] and underscored the psychological harm caused to the child in such a situation. PA behaviours are usually observed with the common patterns as[8]:
1. False accusations of negligence, poor parenting, or abuse
2. Blocking communication and limiting the other parent's time (e.g., ignoring court orders)
3. Restricting involvement in routines, hiding information, and controlling access
4. Undermining authority by unilateral decisions, devaluing preferences, or demeaning the parent in front of the child.
A child who remains in the custody of one parent at the time of separation and continues to remain so in his/her later years, usually builds up a strong emotional attachment with the custodial parent. He gets to know his custodial parent more than the non-custodial parent and his thought process, memory and views can be easily influenced to develop a disliking attitude towards the latter. The conversations aimed at the non-custodial parent may even be with straight words like 'my father is cruel', 'he doesn't love me', 'I don't want to stay with him' and in such situations, it becomes very difficult for the court to arrive at a balanced decision regarding the child's welfare where there are clear indications of the child being deprived of the love and affection of the non-custodial parent.
These behavioural patterns in the child linked to PA can be very concerning and can seriously affect his/her mental health. It can be difficult to counteract the misperceptions that a parent instils in a child about the other parent. The child gets constantly confused in this unwinnable contest of loyalty, where choosing one parent often leaves him/her burdened with pain and guilt.[9] A broken home can make a child insecure in a sense that he can no longer have a complete family which he can call his own. Not only this, there is a possibility that the child loses his/her surroundings, the love of his/her grandparents and his/her familiar neighbourhood. Insecurities, self‑doubt, and lack of confidence can make a child vulnerable to depression, anger, substance abuse, crime, premature sexuality, mental/personality disorder and other destructive paths.[10]
Although it is necessary to recognise PA for the damage it inflicts, amounting to child abuse at times, there has been a considerable debate as to whether PA can be considered to be a crime. PA appears to be more of a psychological problem than a purely legal one and while its attributes may attract the rigors of crime, the imposition of harsh measures may demand careful attention. The child's welfare is the utmost prioritizing factor and his/her mental health needs to be assessed in such situations. The child needs the love and care of both parents for his/her social and emotional development. A Parenting Plan may be enforced in such cases by reintroducing the non-custodial parent in the child's life,[11] coupled with independent psychological evaluations of the parents along with family assessment - all in the best interest of the child. At times, to ensure closeness with the non-custodial parent, some strict measures may also be taken. The instance of S. Anand @ Akash vs. Vanitha Vijay Kumar & Others[12] can be cited as an example wherein the child's refusal to stay with his mother was linked by a psychologist to her authoritative style which was considered necessary for the child's welfare. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had been clear in observing in this case that, when the preference made by the child is on account of a permissive atmosphere created by the retaining parent, it is the duty of the Court to ignore such preference. The Court balanced custody between both parents and directed the father to ensure that the child cooperates and spends time with the mother, failing which arrangement, the Court would not be left with any other alternative other than placing the child in a residential school.
Family problems have increased manifold. The need for research-informed interventions for children, adolescents and adults exposed to parental alienating behaviours is extremely important so that children are stopped from being used as weapons by one parent against the other.
End Notes & References:
1.Writ Petition (C) No.489 of 1995 with No.1016 of 1991, decided on Feb 17, 1999 ↑
2. Vivek Singh vs. Romani Singh : Civil Appeal No.3962 of 2016, decided on Feb13, 2017 ↑
3. Somaprabha Rana & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others : 2024 INSC 664 ↑
4. Nambiar PP, Jangam KV, Seshadri SP. Parental Alienation: Case Series from India. Indian J Psychol Med. 2023 May;45(3):304-306. ↑
5. Marques, T.M.; Narciso, I.; Ferreira, L.C. How Do Family Court Judges Theorize about Parental Alienation? A Qualitative Exploration of the Territory. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7555. ↑
6. Parental Alienation: A New Form of Gender-Based Violence Against Women and Children, Global Campaign for Equality in Family Law (GCEFL), October 20, 2025 ↑
7. AIR 2017 SC 929 ↑
8. Marques, T.M.; Narciso, I.; Ferreira, L.Cz, supra, observed in Vivek Singh vs. Romani Singh ↑
9. Vivek Singh vs. Romani Singh (supra) ↑
10. Saikia Ruksana, Broken Family: Its Causes and Effects on the development of Children, International Journal of Applied Research 2017; 3(2):445-448 ↑
11.Ibid. See also Child Access and Custody Guidelines Along with Parental Plan, 2025, High Court at Calcutta ↑
12. A. No.248 of 2011 in O.P. no.12 of 2011, decided on 21.03.2011; also Smt. Mamoni Pal (Biswas) vs. Samir Pal: FMAT 107 of 2022 with CAN 1 of 2022 decided on 21.07.2022 ↑
Author is a member of the West Bengal Judicial Service. Views are personal.