Introduction
The breakdown of a parental relationship does not necessarily terminate the child’s relationship with either parent. Yet, in high-conflict matrimonial disputes, children frequently become unwilling participants in litigation between their parents. Custody proceedings may consequently transform from an inquiry into the welfare of the child into an extension of the conflict between adults. The phenomenon commonly described as “parental alienation” has acquired particular importance within this context.1
Parental alienation is generally invoked where a child demonstrates persistent and apparently unjustified hostility, rejection or resistance towards one parent, allegedly as a consequence of the conduct of the other parent.2 The concept is controversial because it occupies an uncertain position between law, psychology and family dispute resolution. It may describe observable conduct, but it is also frequently presented as a psychological syndrome.3 This distinction is legally significant.4
Indian custody law is founded upon the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount. Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, place the welfare and interests of the minor at the centre of judicial decision-making.5 The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parental rights cannot supersede the welfare of the child.6 In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, the Court emphasised that custody disputes are not to be determined merely by the competing legal rights of parents; the court must examine the child’s welfare in its widest sense, including the child’s health, education and intellectual development as well as moral and ethical welfare.7 The significance of parental alienation therefore lies not in protecting an abstract right of a rejected parent but in determining whether the child’s welfare has been compromised by deliberate interference with a parent-child relationship.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh8 marked an important stage in the development of Indian jurisprudence. The Court recognised the potential psychological consequences of prolonged separation and parental hostility and observed that parental alienation may adversely affect a child’s personality and development. The judgment encouraged courts to consider whether the child’s expressed preference was genuinely autonomous or had been influenced by prolonged exposure to one parent’s hostility towards the other.9 However, subsequent jurisprudence has introduced an important qualification. In Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, the Supreme Court cautioned against prematurely labelling a parent as an alienator without identifying specific instances of alienating behaviour.10
The 2026 judgment in Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora takes this caution further. The Supreme Court considered a father’s request for the psychological evaluation of a child, made with reference to parental alienation, in a dispute in which the child was alleged to have been sexually abused. The Court observed that the psychological evaluation of a child victim is not to be directed as a matter of routine merely because custody or access is in dispute, and required that any such evaluation meet the tests of demonstrable necessity, minimum intrusion, institutional neutrality, proportionality and paramount regard for the child’s psychological well-being.11
This article argues that these cases collectively demonstrate a significant transformation in Indian judicial thinking. Indian courts are moving away from a simplistic binary in which either the custodial parent is presumed to be an alienator or the child’s expressed preference is treated as conclusive. The emerging approach requires courts to investigate the factual basis of alienation, distinguish legitimate estrangement from manufactured rejection, protect children from litigation-induced trauma and ensure that allegations of abuse are not neutralised through an uncritical invocation of parental alienation.
Research framework
A. Research problem
The central research problem is the absence of a sufficiently precise and consistent legal framework for determining allegations of parental alienation in Indian child custody disputes. Three interconnected difficulties arise.
First, Indian law does not contain a statutory definition of parental alienation. Courts have consequently developed the concept through case law. Second, parental alienation is frequently presented as a psychological phenomenon, while custody courts must make legal findings based upon evidence. The evidentiary status of psychological theories and expert opinions therefore becomes critical. Third, allegations of parental alienation may coexist with allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, neglect or coercive control. An overly broad application of the concept may place a vulnerable parent and child at risk if genuine protective behaviour is incorrectly characterised as alienation.
The research therefore examines whether Indian courts have developed adequate safeguards to prevent the concept of parental alienation from becoming either an instrument of parental retaliation or an excuse for disregarding legitimate child-protection concerns.
B. Research questions
The article addresses the following questions:
1. What is the legal and conceptual meaning of parental alienation in Indian child custody jurisprudence?
2. How have Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court and the High Courts, approached allegations of parental alienation?
3. Has the Supreme Court developed a consistent evidentiary standard for identifying alienating behaviour?
4. How should courts distinguish genuine parental alienation from justified rejection resulting from abuse, neglect, domestic violence or other harmful parental conduct?
5. What role should psychologists, counsellors and other experts play in determining allegations of parental alienation?
6. To what extent does the Indian approach correspond with comparative jurisprudence from England and Wales and the United States?
7. What safeguards should Indian Family Courts adopt to ensure that the concept of parental alienation remains subordinate to the best interests and psychological welfare of the child?
C. Research objectives
The objectives of this article are:
1. To analyse the evolution of parental alienation jurisprudence in India.
2. To critically examine the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vivek Singh, Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh and Sheetal Vasant Thakur.
3. To examine the relationship between parental alienation and the statutory best-interests principle.
4. To assess the evidentiary problems associated with allegations of alienating behaviour.
5. To analyse the appropriate role of psychological experts in custody litigation.
6. To compare Indian judicial approaches with selected foreign jurisdictions.
7. To propose a child-centred judicial framework for adjudicating allegations of parental alienation.
D. Hypotheses
Hypothesis I: Indian courts have increasingly recognised parental alienation as a serious threat to child welfare, but the jurisprudence has historically lacked a sufficiently consistent evidentiary framework for establishing alienating behaviour.
Hypothesis II: The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence demonstrates a movement away from treating parental alienation as a presumed psychological syndrome towards requiring identification of concrete alienating conduct and consideration of the individual circumstances of the child.
Hypothesis III: An uncritical reliance upon allegations of parental alienation may undermine child protection where a child’s rejection of a parent is based upon genuine experiences of abuse, neglect or fear.
Hypothesis IV: A welfare-first, evidence-based and minimum-intrusion approach provides a more appropriate framework for Indian Family Courts than an approach centred upon parental entitlement to contact.
E. Research methodology
The present research adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology.
Primary sources include judgments of the Supreme Court of India and selected High Courts, together with relevant statutory provisions including the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.12
The research also examines international instruments, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child,13 and comparative judicial decisions from England and Wales and the United States. Secondary sources include scholarly literature on parental alienation, child psychology, family law, child welfare and custody adjudication. The case-law analysis is thematic rather than merely chronological. Cases are examined according to five themes: the paramountcy of child welfare; the recognition of parental alienation; evidentiary identification of alienating behaviour; psychological and expert assessment; and safeguards against misuse of the concept. The research does not assume that every rejection of a parent constitutes parental alienation. Instead, it treats alienation as a factual proposition requiring proof in the circumstances of each case.
Literature review
The literature review examines how Indian courts handle parental alienation in child custody disputes. Parental alienation occurs when one parent influences a child against the other parent, which may affect the child’s feelings towards, and relationship with, that parent. However, a child may also reject a parent for genuine reasons, such as fear, abuse or neglect. Courts must therefore carefully understand the reasons behind the child’s behaviour before deciding.
In Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017), the Supreme Court discussed how parental conflict and negative influence can affect a child’s relationship with a parent.14 In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009), the Court emphasised that the child’s welfare is more important than the personal interests of either parent.15 Similarly, Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal (2024) highlights the importance of examining specific evidence rather than accepting allegations of parental alienation without proper assessment.16
This review also focuses on the difficulties courts face in proving parental alienation. For example, it may be difficult to determine whether a child genuinely does not want to meet a parent or has been influenced by the other parent. Courts may consider the child’s statements, the behaviour of both parents, relevant communications and expert opinions when assessing these issues.17 The main purpose of this research is to understand whether Indian courts can identify parental alienation fairly while protecting children from abuse, manipulation and unnecessary parental conflict. It also examines how the best-interests-of-the-child principle guides custody decisions and helps courts choose arrangements that support the child’s safety, emotional well-being and healthy development.
A. Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh: recognition of parental alienation
Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh18 is one of the most significant Indian judgments dealing directly with parental alienation.
The case involved prolonged separation between the child and the mother and a bitter conflict between the parents. The Supreme Court recognised that prolonged exclusion of one parent could contribute to the development of parental alienation and adversely affect the child’s psychological and emotional development.19
The Court’s reasoning is significant in at least three respects. First, it recognised that the intensity of one parent’s negative feelings towards the other would itself have an effect on the child’s psyche. Second, it acknowledged that prolonged exposure to one parent’s negative perception of the other may influence the child’s own perception. Third, refusing to “turn a blind eye” to the bitterness between the parents, it treated the possibility that the child’s affection for the absent parent had been diminished as a matter the court must weigh.20
The decision therefore expanded Indian custody jurisprudence beyond physical custody.
However, Vivek Singh should not be read as establishing a presumption that a child’s rejection of a parent proves alienation. That distinction becomes critical in subsequent jurisprudence.21
B. Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal: the need for evidentiary caution
The Supreme Court’s decision in Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal22 represents an important refinement of the jurisprudence.
The dispute involved competing claims concerning custody of minor children. The mother argued that the father, with whom the children had lived for several years, had deliberately alienated them. The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reliance upon parental alienation where specific instances of alienating behaviour had not been identified. The Court recognised that parental alienation is a complex phenomenon and cautioned against prematurely attributing the label to a parent.23
This represents a critical methodological development.
The judicial question cannot simply be whether the child prefers one parent. It must instead be: what evidence explains the child’s preference, and is there identifiable conduct by either parent that has unjustifiably contributed to that preference?
This distinction is essential because a child’s rejection may be justified.
A child may resist contact because of abuse, intimidation, domestic violence, neglect, inappropriate parental conduct, prolonged absence, emotional insecurity, developmental factors or the child’s own independent experience. Consequently, parental alienation must be established through evidence rather than assumed from the existence of a strained parent-child relationship. The decision therefore establishes an important safeguard against weaponisation of the concept.
C. Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora: the 2026 development
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora24 is particularly significant for the future of Indian parental alienation jurisprudence.
The case involved a child in the context of serious allegations of sexual abuse. The father sought psychological evaluation and raised concerns about parental alienation and false memory creation. The Bombay High Court had directed the constitution of a multi-member expert panel, including experts suggested by the father.25 The Supreme Court scrutinised the process from the perspective of the child’s welfare and psychological integrity. The judgment is important because it recognises a fundamental procedural principle: the process by which a court determines the child’s welfare must itself be welfare-oriented.26 The Court cautioned against repeated psychological assessment where it may cause secondary victimisation or re-traumatisation.27 It emphasised minimum intrusion and institutional neutrality.28 The judgment also referred to the caution expressed in Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh concerning the premature attribution of parental alienation.29
The jurisprudential trajectory can therefore be represented as follows:
• Vivek Singh → recognition of the problem
• Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh → evidentiary caution
• Sheetal Vasant Thakur → child-centred procedural safeguards
This represents an important maturation of Indian law. Long-running custody litigation is itself potentially harmful to children.
Findings
The study reaches the following findings:
1. Indian law does not presently provide a statutory definition of parental alienation.
2. The best-interests principle remains the controlling standard in custody disputes.
3. Vivek Singh legitimately recognised the psychological consequences of unjustified parental exclusion.
4. Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh introduced an essential evidentiary safeguard by requiring concrete identification of alienating behaviour.
5. Sheetal Vasant Thakur significantly strengthens child-centred procedural safeguards concerning psychological evaluation.
6. A child’s rejection of a parent cannot, by itself, establish parental alienation.
7. Genuine allegations of abuse and domestic violence must be independently examined.
8. Psychological experts should assist rather than replace judicial reasoning.
9. Expert evaluation should be neutral, necessary and minimally intrusive.
10. The concept of parental alienation should be used to protect children rather than to advance parental litigation strategies.
Recommendations
The following reforms are proposed:
Judicial guidelines. The Supreme Court or the appropriate rule-making authority should develop Family Court guidelines concerning allegations of parental alienation.
Evidence-based allegations. Parties should be required to identify the specific alienating conduct alleged.
Neutral experts. Where expert assessment is necessary, courts should appoint neutral experts rather than relying primarily upon experts selected by one party.30
Minimum intrusion. Children should not be repeatedly psychologically evaluated unless the court records reasons demonstrating necessity.31
Separate abuse assessment. Allegations of abuse should never be rejected merely because parental alienation has been alleged.
Child-sensitive participation. Children should be heard in a manner appropriate to their age and maturity without turning them into witnesses against either parent.32
Time-bound custody proceedings. Prolonged proceedings can themselves intensify parental conflict and should therefore be discouraged.
Post-order monitoring. Where structured visitation or reunification is ordered, courts should provide mechanisms for monitoring its effect upon the child.
Discussion
Parental alienation is a serious issue in Indian child custody disputes, especially when parents separate or divorce. In some cases, one parent may influence the child to develop negative feelings towards the other parent, which can affect their relationship. However, a child may also avoid a parent for genuine reasons, such as fear, abuse or neglect. Courts must therefore understand the actual situation before making a decision. Indian courts have emphasised that the child’s welfare should always come first. In Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017), the Supreme Court discussed how parental conflict and influence can affect a child’s relationship with a parent.33 Similarly, in Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009), the Court made it clear that the child’s welfare is more important than the personal interests of either parent.34
One of the main challenges in these cases is proving parental alienation. It is not always easy for courts to determine whether a child has been influenced by one parent or has genuine reasons for rejecting the other. Courts may consider the behaviour of both parents, the child’s statements, communication records and expert opinions before reaching a conclusion.35 Allegations alone should not be treated as proof.36 The best-interests-of-the-child principle plays an important role in resolving these disputes. Courts must consider the child’s safety, feelings, emotional needs and relationship with both parents. Where appropriate, counselling and supervised visitation may help improve the situation. However, if contact with a parent could put the child at risk, the court must prioritise the child’s protection.
In sum, parental alienation requires careful consideration by Indian courts. They must examine the evidence fairly and distinguish between deliberate attempts to turn a child against a parent and genuine concerns about the child’s safety. The main aim should be to protect the child’s happiness, emotional well-being and healthy development rather than allowing parental disputes to affect the child’s future adversely.
Conclusion
Parental alienation is a serious concern in Indian child custody disputes because it can affect a child’s relationship with their parents and their emotional well-being. When parents separate or divorce, their personal conflicts should not negatively affect the child’s life. Indian courts have recognised that the welfare of the child must be the main consideration when deciding custody matters. However, identifying parental alienation is not always easy. A child may reject one parent because of the influence of the other parent, but there may also be genuine reasons, such as fear, abuse or neglect. Courts must therefore carefully examine the facts and evidence before reaching a decision. Cases such as Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017) and Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) highlight the importance of protecting the child’s welfare and emotional development.37
In conclusion, Indian courts should adopt a fair and balanced approach to parental alienation by considering the child’s feelings, safety and relationship with both parents. Greater awareness, proper evaluation of evidence and professional counselling where appropriate can help courts make better decisions. Ultimately, the child’s best interests must always come first, and custody decisions should focus on providing a safe, stable and supportive environment for the child’s healthy growth and future.
*****
Footnotes
1. See, e.g., Suman v. Virender Kumar, FAO No. 2116 of 2020 (O&M), 2024:PHHC:122518-DB, ¶¶ 25–26 (P&H H.C. Sept. 13, 2024) (India) (setting aside, on a mother’s appeal, the dismissal of her custody petition and remanding the matter to the Family Court for reference to a counsellor, who might seek the assistance of a child psychologist to ascertain whether the children were afflicted with parental alienation syndrome); Vaishnavi Prabhakaran v. Goldie Sharma, W.P. Nos. 9885 & 11842 of 2024 (Kar. H.C. July 8, 2024) (India) (father contending in a visitation dispute that denial of access would amount to parental alienation).
2. See Joan B. Kelly & Janet R. Johnston, The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome, 39 Fam. Ct. Rev. 249 (2001), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2001.tb00609.x.
3. Richard A. Gardner, Recent Trends in Divorce and Custody Litigation, 29 Acad. F. 3 (1985) (describing a “parental alienation syndrome”); cf. Kelly & Johnston, supra note 2 (reformulating the syndrome around the alienated child and the multiple causes of a child’s rejection of a parent).
4. Re C (Parental Alienation; Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam), [103] (Eng.) (endorsing the view that whether a parent has alienated a child is a question of fact for the court, not a diagnosis, and that the court’s focus should be the identification of “alienating behaviour” rather than the label).
5. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, No. 32 of 1956, India Code (1956), § 13; The Guardians and Wards Act, No. 8 of 1890, India Code (1890), § 17.
6. Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673 (India); Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413, ¶ 55 (India).
7. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42 (India).
8. Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231, ¶ 18 (India).
9. Id.
10. Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, 2024 INSC 397, ¶ 22 (India).
11. Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora, 2026 INSC 638, ¶¶ 79, 97(ii)–(iv) (India).
12. Guardians and Wards Act § 17; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act § 13; The Family Courts Act, No. 66 of 1984, India Code (1984); The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, No. 32 of 2012, India Code (2012); The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, No. 43 of 2005, India Code (2005).
13. Convention on the Rights of the Child arts. 3, 9, 12, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
14. Vivek Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231, ¶ 18.
15. Gaurav Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42.
16. Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh, 2024 INSC 397, ¶¶ 22–23.
17. See, e.g., Mohd. Irshad v. Nadeem, MAT. APP. (F.C.) 218/2018, ¶ 35 (Del. H.C. Sept. 1, 2023) (India) (recording, after interacting with the child in chambers, that he felt alienated from his father); Suman, supra note 1, ¶ 26 (reference to a counsellor assisted by a child psychologist).
18. Vivek Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 (decided Feb. 13, 2017).
19. Id. ¶ 18.
20. Id.
21. Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh, 2024 INSC 397, ¶¶ 20, 25 (holding that there is “no straitjacket formula” for invoking Vivek Singh and that reliance on it in that case was misdirected).
22. Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh, 2024 INSC 397 (decided May 8, 2024).
23. Id. ¶¶ 5.3, 17–25 (adopting Re C, supra note 4, [103]).
24. Sheetal Vasant Thakur, 2026 INSC 638 (decided June 11, 2026).
25. Id. ¶¶ 2–3, 16, 23–26, 83.
26. Id. ¶¶ 54–55, 98.
27. Id. ¶¶ 54, 97(v), (x).
28. Id. ¶¶ 72, 79, 97(iv), (viii). The Court nonetheless directed the Family Court to ascertain, through reports of the psychologist treating the child and without necessarily interacting with the child on the issue, whether any parental influence was fostering “parental alienation syndrome” or “false memory creation”. Id. ¶ 93(F).
29. Id. ¶ 85 (citing Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh, supra note 10).
30. Cf. Sheetal Vasant Thakur, supra note 11, ¶¶ 72, 97(vi)–(viii).
31. Cf. id. ¶ 97(iii), (v).
32. Cf. Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 13, art. 12.
33. Vivek Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231, ¶ 18.
34. Gaurav Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42.
35. See Sheetal Vasant Thakur, supra note 11, ¶ 97(xx); Suman, supra note 1, ¶ 26.
36. Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh, supra note 10, ¶¶ 22–23.
37. Vivek Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231, ¶ 18; Gaurav Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42.