The Gujarat High Court recently refused to interfere with a mother's custody over her minor daughter, who had alleged that her husband's extensive reliance on ChatGPT had contributed to their marital discord. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 295]

The court passed the order in the father's habeas corpus plea seeking production of his minor daughter claiming that the child had been illegally detained by her mother. 

A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachhani noted that the mother had in her response to the father's legal notice said that the father had developed a habit of extensively using ChatGPT even for minor and routine things and would repeatedly engaged with the platform. She alleged that he had gradually started forming and fabricating various narratives, which further affected his behaviour and inter-personal relationship with the wife and contributed to the increasing matrimonial discord. 

She claimed that the husband used words like “mother manipulator” “daughter thief”, “mama extortionist”, and “father spineless” which points to the husband's excessive dependence upon ChatGPT. She also claimed that in April, 2025 during a dental treatment, the husband developed one sided romantic attachment with the doctor therein.

She said that in  May, 2025, the wife expressed her concern to the husband and his family and requested to refrain from excessive use of ChatGPT, however his behaviour did not change. 

Observing that welfare of the child is of paramount importance, the court thereafter said:

"Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the custody of the minor daughter aged about 2 years and 3 months with the mother – respondent no. 6 cannot termed to be an illegal custody and having regard to the allegations made by the wife, as referred in para-7 of the judgment, we are of the considered opinion that, no case is made out to change the custody of minor daughter and having regard to the nature of dispute between the parties, the issue of custody required thorough enquiry by the competent court as dispute involves detailed disputed facts requiring extensive evidence to be recorded and determined by the competent court"

The father claimed that the wife left the matrimonial home while the minor daughter remained with the petitioner. A few months later, the wife removed the minor's custody from the father without his knowledge. He claimed that when he tried to meet his daughter he was not permitted by the mother to see their child.

He lodged a police complaint however no action was taken. Thereafter he lodged a private complaint with the magistrate who although issued notice but said that "it would not be an appropriate to pass an order for securing the custody of the child as the question of custody of the child is governed by the procedure prescribed under the applicable law and the applicant is at liberty to avail such appropriate remedy before the Competent Forum". The father thus moved the high court in a habeas corpus plea.

The court said that it is open to the parties to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law. In such case, the concerned Court shall decide the application in accordance with law without being influence by the observations made in the high court's order.

The court further clarified that it had not examined or expressed any opinion on the rival claims of the parties regarding permanent or interim custody of the minor child.

The plea was dismissed.